Looking at the Canon 9500 Mk2

[keith_cooper]

Canon UK recently lent me a Pro9500 Mk2 printer to have a go with :-)

I've written up a collection of my thoughts on using the printer at:
www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/canon_pixma_9500_mk2.html

From a print quality point of view, I thought the results were very good, both colour and B/W

If there was one aspect that did annoy, then it was the enforced 35mm margins at the top and bottom of pages when using art papers and the straight through print path. All the more puzzling, since the printer does perfectly good borderless printing via the top paper feed.

[feppe]

Thanks, good in-depth review.

Do you have some comparisons between it and dye-based 13/14" printers? This would help those of us considering upgrading to a pigment-based printer, as that's probably the biggest market segment for the 9500 Mk2.

I did some comparison on ink costs, and it appears that pigment-based is more expensive. Very curious to see what the differences are in gamut.

[probep]

Thanks for your info.
I own a Canon Pro9500 and I've tested a Canon Pro9500 Mark II as well.
1. I didn't see any serious print difference between them.
2. There are problems with printing on matte papers: small gamut volume and very small output density (Dmax). I've tested some matte papers - results are bad, for example:
 Canon Matt Photo Paper -- Dmax=1.24!, L*min=26!
 Epson Archival Matte Paper -- Dmax=1.32
 Epson Matte Paper-Heavyweight -- Dmax=1.27

Epson Stylus Photo R2880 is better for matte papers.

[keith_cooper]

Thanks for your info.
I own a Canon Pro9500 and I've tested a Canon Pro9500 Mark II.
1. I didn't see any serious print difference between them.
2. There are problems with printing on matte papers: small gamut volume and very small output density (Dmax). I've tested some matte papers - results are bad, for example:
 Canon Matt Photo Paper -- Dmax=1.24!!!
 Epson Archival Matte Paper -- Dmax=1.32
 Epson Matte Paper-Heavyweight -- Dmax=1.27

Epson Stylus Photo R2880 is better for matte papers.

Those values look pretty low compared to what I found with the Mk2, I would not have a problem in using the 9500 II for smaller prints colour and B/W. There are a couple of QTR graphs in the article suggesting appreciably higher values on the two matte papers measured.

I'll have to admit to not worrying a great deal about precise Dmax measurements (and even less for 'gamut volumes') - I go on what a print looks like with a particular image. Very much a personal matter of what looks good, rather than following the numbers.

I profiled several Canon papers for the article and find the performance very good for pigment inks. I also profiled some third party papers which also performed well - I'll see if I can get a short supplementary article covering those papers published in the next few days.

[Deepsouth]

As a long-time owner of the 9500 Mk I, I would appreciate seeing the results. I am not very impressed with Canon's profiles for its own media. My current fave media is the Harman Gloss FB Al. I find the Harman profile works best if I knock down Saturation 8 points and increase Gamma to 1.1 The 35 mm margin is just dumb, and why Canon won't patch this is beyond me. I think the Room Light compenation of the Mk II is a weird gimmick, since a print may be viewed in sunlight filtering through windows during the day and by tungsten/fluorescent/LED lights at night.

[keith_cooper]

I've the Canon paper profiles I created, available for non commercial use, if anyone wants to mail me direct? These are the ones I used for all the colour prints in the article. A mix of 918 and 1728 patch targets measured on an i1 iSis and profiled with PM5.

The room light feature is WinPC only which gave me a second good reason for not trying it ;-)