Pixma Pro 9500 Mark II any good?

[marimagen]

Hi,
I'm low on funds at the moment, and I'm thinking of buying a cheap printer. Is the Pixma Pro 9500 Mark II any good? I want to be able to print good enough proofs to see which ones are worth printing in a lab. Any other suggestion around 500$ (but not Epson please because I had more clog ups that I can remember with my 2200)? Thanks in advance,
Marie

[Josh-H]

The answer to your question is a resounding - YES.

The 9500 and the 9500 MKII are both outstanding printers. They offer fully 90%+ the performance of Canons larger format 12 ink printers in a low cost alternative. Their achilles heel is that their ink cartridges are tiny compared to their bigger brethren. If you plan on any real sort of volume printing then the 9500 is not a good choice. Don't think of the differences between the 9500 and the X100 series as a quality differential. Because it isn't. Its simply a matter of printing size capability and ink volume. If you only need 13x19 paper as your max size and are a very small volume printer then the 9500 is a good choice. If on the other hand.. you print a lot and big; then save your pennies. The real cost of printers is not the initial purchase - its ink.

As to 'proofs' from a 9500... hmm ok.. just be aware - a properly soft proofed and printed image on the 9500 is likely to be better than what you get from the average lab - which dont use pigment ink printers.

I owned a 9500 for quite a while, and now own an IPF5100 and IPf6300 so I feel pretty qualified to judge these machines. I never had clog issues with the 9500 (or the bigger brothers either for that matter).

As I said above - consider carefully your volume and size requirements. Ongoing costs are what count with these machines - not the initial outlay.

[probep]

Ha-ha, I own a Pro9500.
Josh-H, do you really not see problems with Pro9500? O-o, I do see them:
1. Pro9500 has problems with Fine Art papers: a 35mm wide strip at each end of the page you cannot print on.
2. Pro9500 is bad for matte papers: very bad black level (Dmax) and small color gamut. To increase Dmax and the color gamut it's necessary to use "Fine Art" media settings. But... see n.1.
3. Pro9500 has the color gamut that is less than the color gamut of Epson R2880. On the same papers, of cause.
4. When an ink tank becomes empty the Pro9500 does not stop printing to allow to change the ink tank.
5. Pro9500 (both marks) is very slow.
and so on.

[Josh-H]

Ha-ha, I own a Pro9500.
Josh-H, do you really not see problems with Pro9500? O-o, I do see them:
1. Pro9500 has problems with Fine Art papers: a 35mm wide strip at each end of the page you cannot print on.
2. Pro9500 is bad for matte papers: very bad black level (Dmax) and small color gamut. To increase Dmax and the color gamut it's necessary to use "Fine Art" media settings. But... see n.1.
3. Pro9500 has the color gamut that is less than the color gamut of Epson R2880. On the same papers, of cause.
4. When an ink tank become empty the Pro9500 does not stop printing to allow to change the ink tank.
5. Pro9500 (both marks) is very slow.
and so on.

Sorry but I disagree - Since fine art printing (at least for me, and I know for a lot of others) means always having a margin (usually 1") the lack of borderless printing is simply a non-issue. Personally, I have never printed borderless. If you needed borderless printing and bought the 9500 then you did not do much research.

the above point renders your point 2 moot.  Not sure where you are coming from with point 2 anyway since if you are printing on fine art matter papers you should be using 'fine art matt paper setting' Thats a no brainer.

Point 3 I cannot confirm or deny - Please show me where the gamut is so significantly different

Point 4 - I have not run into this problem.

Point 5 - I would not consider this printer very slow; just average for speed.

What does 'and so on' refer to?

[probep]

About point 2: please, look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=42106.0

[feppe]

If on the other hand.. you print a lot and big; then save your pennies. The real cost of printers is not the initial purchase - its ink.

You imply printing is cheaper with pigment printers. That's not necessarily the case. I did the math between Canon i9950 vs Epson 3800, and Epson is more expensive per square cm. Can't find the post here since the forum upgrade broke google search.

[marimagen]

Thanks for your feedback Josh. I suppose no printer is perfect, and the 9500 sounds like it can handle my small output volume and deliver good quality prints.
Marie

[keith_cooper]

I'd say yes - apart from the margins issue (see other views here though)

I had a good look at one a while ago, which might be of interest?

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/printer/canon_pixma_9500_mk2.html

[sm906]

...and I'm thinking of buying a cheap printer. Is the Pixma Pro 9500 Mark II any good? I want to be able to print good enough proofs to see which ones are worth printing in a lab. Any other suggestion around 500$ (but not Epson please because I had more clog ups that I can remember with my 2200)? Thanks in advance,
Marie

What about the good old HP9180? It should meet your price tag. The printer is available for less than 500$ at ebay and Amazon, even new ones. Clogs had never been an issue for me, and even if there is a printhead problem buy a new one for 50 Euros / USD. The printing and built quality is fine. Have a look at Vincents shoot-out on HP Photosmart Pro B9180, Canon PIXMA Pro 9500 and Epson Stylus Photo R2400: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers/Pigs/page_1.html.

Thomas

[keith_cooper]

Could it be that it's discontinued?

I might wonder at ongoing support when the company has (seemingly) pulled out of this particular market sector?

[marimagen]

Thomas, I've looked at the review, and the HP has two good points (apart from the quality): bigger cartridges, and faster printing. Thansk for pointing it out.
Marie