Need a new printer??

[Ferp]

The amount left doesn't determine the amount you used :-)

I realize that    There are two separate issues.  My long post was about the amount used, which seems to be a fair bit less than 80m, if the comparison with the P600 is any guide.  Assuming that the cart started with 80ml, that implies that there's a fair bit left.  So the issues are related. 

There are two methodologies for analyzing amount used and amount left.  One is what Bob did and weigh empty and full carts.  The other is to compare usage data across printers - the Red River approach.  What we really need is a volunteer to open (sacrifice) a full cart and measure the ink and do the same for an empty one.  That will resolve the matter once and for all.  This is far from a new issue on Lula.

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

Canon does not have this problem [black ink switching], but there I hate the fact ... that the fiber paper requires large margin, so the 17" isn't that much bigger than the 13".

This seems to me to contain two misconceptions.

(1) Joe "Jtoolman" recently told me that the Canon large margin issue is not an issue on the Pro-1000 (i.e., the current 17" model) like it is on the 13" models (i.e., the pigment-ink Pro-10 or the dye-ink Pro-100). The Pro-1000 has a vacuum device to hold the paper down, so head strikes are not the concern that they are with the 13" models, so no extra-large margins are imposed on the Pro-1000.

(2) The large margins are on the top and bottom of the paper in portrait orientation, not the sides. For most paper sizes, when a Canon is not in borderless mode, I think the side margins are 3.4mm (i.e., a hair over 1/8 in) each. (For some odd reason about which I can only speculate, AFAIK only on letter- and legal-size paper, non-borderless mode imposes margins on each side of 6.35mm (i.e., 1/4 inch).

Net takeaway: AFAIK using 'art' papers a Pro-10 or Pro-100 can print 12.7 x 16.6 in on a 13 x 19 in sheet, but a Pro-1000 can print somewhere around 16.7 x 24.6 in on a 17 x 25 in sheet. Either printer can use custom paper sizes up to about 26.6 in long, so if you are willing to cut down rolls or 13 x 38 in sheets, on art paper a Pro-10 or Pro-100 could print up to about 12.7 x 24.2 in. So it's only with a 2:1 or more extreme panorama that the 13" models get you essentially the same print size as the Pro-1000.

[nirpat89]

Net takeaway: AFAIK using 'art' papers a Pro-10 or Pro-100 can print 12.7 x 16.6 in on a 13 x 19 in sheet, but a Pro-1000 can print somewhere around 16.7 x 24.6 in on a 17 x 25 in sheet. Either printer can use custom paper sizes up to about 26.6 in long, so if you are willing to cut down rolls or 13 x 38 in sheets, on art paper a Pro-10 or Pro-100 could print up to about 12.7 x 24.2 in. So it's only with a 2:1 or more extreme panorama that the 13" models get you essentially the same print size as the Pro-1000.

You are right.  I stand corrected.  I must have been thinking about the older models or the fact that Canon still advises to keep 25mm in the leading and trailing edges, just not mandating as in the older printers.  Apparently if you select the canned media types it will default to margin requirements which you can override.

http://ugp01.c-ij.com/ij/webmanual/Manual/All/PRO-1000%20series/EN/BG/bg-078.html

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

Canon still advises to keep 25mm in the leading and trailing edges, just not mandating as in the older printers.  Apparently if you select the canned media types it will default to margin requirements which you can override.

That's my understanding too. Keith's review (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-1000-printer-review/) talks about this:

One of my biggest gripes with the previous PRO range printers was the enforcement of huge margins on some paper types.

My first print without large margins drew this error. Fortunately there is a box you can tick in the print driver settings. You’ll still get this warning, but ignore it. Here’s a borderless A2 print on a heavy matte paper fed via the manual feed slot – no problems at all.

     *     *     *

The biggest and most welcome step forward is the removal of margin limitations and the availability of borderless printing for any paper. This was a constant source of annoyance for some users of smaller Canon printers, enough to push a sale elsewhere.

The vacuum paper feed system contributes to the improvement, and I never had a single issue with paper curl or smudging with any of the media I tried.

And from Canon's website (https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART163218):

Photo Paper Pro Premium Matte PM-101 and Matte Photo Paper MP-101 are printed to paper sizes with 0.98 inch (25 mm) margins depending on print settings. To print to other page sizes, remove restrictions on margins.

From personal experience I can tell you that the Pro-100 insists on 30mm (1.18 in) top and bottom margins with when set for Photo Paper Pro Premium Matte PM-101--but maybe oddly, or maybe because it's thinner, not with Matte Photo Paper MP-101.

So I think the Pro-1000, instead of having forced-minimum 30mm top and bottom margins with 'art' papers, now merely warns you that margins less than 25mm (0.98 in) may cause issues, but it lets you override the warning and print, even borderless; and doing so can be accomplished without actual problems. That does not mean that there will never be a problem, but you can probably say the same about any printer.

[nirpat89]

Although it appears that nirpat89 has settled on the P400, I wanted to better understand these Red River numbers.

Yes, ordered the P400.  I was swayed further by reading opinions of Mark (of aardenberg-imaging fame) on many of the threads here.  Looked like an underappreciated printer.  Hopefully I will not be disappointed too badly.  17' will wait for another day or year. 

Regarding the methodology of Red River, they are gathering their data by continuously printing 200 8x10 sheets of Bill Atkinson’s test image, changing an empty cartridge only when the printer stopped.  Obviously it does not take into account any of the maintenance cycles or switching losses that one would incur in real-life usage.  At the end of printing, tally up the total cartridges used and come up with what they call Cartridge Equivalent Unit, CEU, number.  This is a better number for comparison as it does away with the local price of the cartridge.  For example for P800 PK, it is 0.00015125 per sq inch.  The same for P600 PK is 0.0004119.  If you take a ratio of the two, it comes out to be about 2.7, which is less than the theoretical number based on the volumes (80/25.9=3.1.) 

The same for R2000 PK is 0.00042 - nearly identical to the P600K number, even with half the size of the cartridge capacity.  That is the surprising aspect as you have pointed out. I mentioned earlier that the fact that there are more saturated colors in the HG2 inkset could be one source for need for less volume of ink for a given coverage.  I wonder the other reason could be the way the 3 printers are designed.  What caught my eye was that in R2000/P400, the little cartridges of the ink sit right on top of the heads and travel together with them as they print.  The ink is gravity fed, it would seem, perhaps allowing much more efficient emptying of the cartridges than the other two where the cartridges are sitting sideways (as far as I can tell from the pictures.)

http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing.html

http://www.redrivercatalog.com/epson-surecolor-p600-cost-per-print.html
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/epson-surecolor-p800-cost-per-print.html
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing.html

:Niranjan.

[Ferp]

At the end of printing, tally up the total cartridges used and come up with what they call Cartridge Equivalent Unit, CEU, number.  This is a better number for comparison as it does away with the local price of the cartridge.

Yes, I understand the RR methodology.  I read it carefully in order to understand the numbers.  Your summary is more concise than mine.  I agree that in terms of ink usage, the CEU numbers are more enlightening.  They demonstrate more clearly that you get a higher percentage of the ink out of the P600 carts. 

However ultimately it's the cost of printing which is the important question.  My concern with the RR cost per page numbers was that they understated the difference between the two printers, because they seemed to overstate the difference in cartridge costs compared to what you pay now.  (Plus there are some questions about precisely when they replaced cartridges as they rattled out their 200 pages.)

What caught my eye was that in R2000/P400, the little cartridges of the ink sit right on top of the head and travel together with them as they print.  The ink is gravity fed, it would seem, perhaps allowing much more efficient emptying of the cartridges than the other two where the cartridges are sitting sideways (as far as I can tell from the pictures.)

I'm not a printer technician, but my understanding is that the printers that don't have the cartridges on the print head, such as the P800, have a pressurized ink system to deliver the ink to the head.  The P400 seems to rely on a combination of gravity and the print head pulling the ink from the cart.  If I'm right that both the P600 and P800 are pressurized, then the ink delivery system doesn't explain why you get to use a much lower percentage of the P800 cart.  Either it's a design limitation of the larger cartridge, or Epson is trying to finesse the relative economics of their range of printers.

[Johnperrydk]

No love for the Pro 1000?

I upgraded my dead 3000 to the Canon Pro 1000 6 months Ago and never looked back.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pikeys]

I know the 1000 has 3 more inks,but,how does it compare to the R3000?Is there a big difference in print quality
The Canon looks like a beautiful printer-use it in good health

Mike