Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: HCHeyerdahl on February 22, 2026, 02:35:55 am
-
I am in the process of deciding on a new printer to replace my HP Z 3200.
I recently had a demo of the Canon pro 4600 and really liked it. Searching online for reviews and experiences, I find mostly positive feedback.
Does anyone have any experiences with these printers to share?
Chris
-
I don't have experience with the 4600 but I've had a 4100 for about 4 years and really like it. No major issues so far.
-
I am in the process of deciding on a new printer to replace my HP Z 3200.
I recently had a demo of the Canon pro 4600 and really liked it. Searching online for reviews and experiences, I find mostly positive feedback.
Does anyone have any experiences with these printers to share?
Chris
I have PRO-4000 that works flawlessly for 10 years and never had a single service. I also have PRO-2600 and must admit it's MUCH better - ink is very improved, and machine is much more convenient in use. I believe it's the best printer you can get, and after HP Z you'll be spoiled by how good it is xd
-
Thanks, this seems good!
One ting, how noisy is the pro 2600 when not in use? The HP Z 3200 has a fan constantly running when not in use. Does the pro 2600 have a similar fan running?
-
4600 is very quiet - I can barely hear ours, next to my desk (though we do have a fairly effective air handling system).
-
Thanks, this seems good!
One ting, how noisy is the pro 2600 when not in use? The HP Z 3200 has a fan constantly running when not in use. Does the pro 2600 have a similar fan running?
No, it's completely noiseless when not in use, and also much quieter when printing
-
Thank you again, that is nice.
Do you have any experience with printing on sheet paper. Does it really work on A4 paper sizes?
-
pretty easy to load sheet material, though the smallest I've used was 16" (off cuts from long pano prints, used for calibration targets)
-
No, it's completely noiseless when not in use, and also much quieter when printing
That's a huge plus. The Z3200 idle fan noise is ridiculous. I had to modify mine to make the fan go to sleep like it does in the Z3100.
-
I used a pro 6000 and 4000 extensively in the past, and yeah, you can load A4 media no problem. There will be about 3/8-1/2" of space at the back edge you won't be able to print however because it has to hold onto the paper somehow.
Can anybody comment as to whether or not they improved the situation with paper feed adjusting on the x600 series? My biggest problem with the original models was that they dramatically decreased the diameter of the feed roller from the previous ipf 8400/9400 which I believe led to my having to constantly do feed adjustments to compensate for paper slippage, especially at the beginning of a roll vs. at the end.
Ironically I recently got a really good deal on a used HP Z9+ with the vertical trimmer, and never having much experience with HPs in the past I wanted to check out the quality vs. my Canon 9400s. Especially since HP makes a 64" version, the only other company to make a 64" aqueous printer besides Epson. Haven't seen a SINGLE word about the Z9+ Pro anywhere here or on the internet at large though, so I have no idea who is using them.
-
Ironically I recently got a really good deal on a used HP Z9+ with the vertical trimmer, and never having much experience with HPs in the past I wanted to check out the quality vs. my Canon 9400s. Especially since HP makes a 64" version, the only other company to make a 64" aqueous printer besides Epson. Haven't seen a SINGLE word about the Z9+ Pro anywhere here or on the internet at large though, so I have no idea who is using them.
Anything on PrintPlanet? I went there in many yrs past (didn't know about LuLa at the time) and often found useful info/help. The users in their Wide Format forum seemed much more commercial printing oriented than casual home users like me, so might be more likely to find feedback on the 64" Z9+ Pro there. Or absolutely zero, which would be very telling...
https://printplanet.com/forums/wide-format-and-inkjet-discussion.57/
-
I used a pro 6000 and 4000 extensively in the past, and yeah, you can load A4 media no problem. There will be about 3/8-1/2" of space at the back edge you won't be able to print however because it has to hold onto the paper somehow.
Can anybody comment as to whether or not they improved the situation with paper feed adjusting on the x600 series? My biggest problem with the original models was that they dramatically decreased the diameter of the feed roller from the previous ipf 8400/9400 which I believe led to my having to constantly do feed adjustments to compensate for paper slippage, especially at the beginning of a roll vs. at the end.
Ironically I recently got a really good deal on a used HP Z9+ with the vertical trimmer, and never having much experience with HPs in the past I wanted to check out the quality vs. my Canon 9400s. Especially since HP makes a 64" version, the only other company to make a 64" aqueous printer besides Epson. Haven't seen a SINGLE word about the Z9+ Pro anywhere here or on the internet at large though, so I have no idea who is using them.
I used the media compensation in Fiery Rip to adjust, and didn't have a problem with length adjustment on our 8400 between start, middle, and end of roll. I believe there is a per media calibration for start and end adjustment, but never needed it.
I've not yet needed to adjust this on our 4600, using Mirage (I miss a fully fledged rip...)
I was really interested when the Z9+ came out, but there were mulitiple reports of fine art media handling problems, here and elsewhere, so it dropped off my list of candidates.
-
I'm not talking about media length compensation in software-- there is a function per paper type that you adjust on the printer itself that adjusts feeding so that you can avoid any kind of banding associated with the media not feeding perfectly on each head pass. But the fact that you haven't had to use that is good news in itself ;D
-
I'm seeing an annoying random light band with the latest roll of Phototex OP (shows up 12" or 60" into a print), but I suspect this is a fault in the media, rather than the printer. Other media are playing nicely.
-
try the feed adjustment! make sure you set the paper type on the printer to match what you select in the driver at the time of printing, then go to maintenance > feed adjustment set the "feed priority" to "quality" then run the feed adjustment (auto other). I've had that often not be enough, but redoing it using the manual setting pretty much always works, it just uses a lot of media. Phototex is quite slippery because of the peel off backing.
-
Anything on PrintPlanet? I went there in many yrs past (didn't know about LuLa at the time) and often found useful info/help. The users in their Wide Format forum seemed much more commercial printing oriented than casual home users like me, so might be more likely to find feedback on the 64" Z9+ Pro there. Or absolutely zero, which would be very telling...
https://printplanet.com/forums/wide-format-and-inkjet-discussion.57/
I used to trawl printplanet kind of regularly, but I got frustrated with the quality of discussion there (there were a lot of "help me I have no idea what I'm doing" type posts asking for help with problems that could easily be solved by RTFM). Also I just did a quick search for just "Z9+" and only found a single post related to whether or not GMG supported the printer for proofing. There are more posts on this forum about it from a few years back, but nothing about the "PRO" version-- This printer is supposed to arrive in about 30 mins, so maybe I'll start a thread about it once I get going with it. There's no silver bullet right now for printers in that 60"-64" range IMO, the HP being the only one of the 3 that I haven't tried personally.
@Czornyj -- I'm wondering if you could explain your statement about the ink being "much improved" on the x600 series-- I hadn't heard anything specific about them changing the inkset between the variants of this model (or maybe I did hear that they had improved the yellow fading issue? It's hard to remember the quiet details) and I haven't seen any longevity studies comparing them. I do recall feeling like bronzing was definitely worse on the PRO x000s vs the Epson P20000 I was using at the time, but it wasn't enough of an issue to bother our clients at all-- and this is with or without full page gloss optimizer.
There is an HP produced video comparing the Z9+ Pro to the P20000 where they claim it's faster, has considerably less gloss differential, etc. but I've not heard any firsthand anecdotal evidence to back that up, and it does feel like HP printers (besides the diehard users here of the older models) are mostly the providence of non-"fine-art" print service providers... but the specs are enticing to me.
-
The x600 series and the 1100 all come with the updated V2 of the Lucia Pro ink set (all colors have been reformulated except MK, which is the same as on the previous generation Lucia Pro 1).
The changes appear to mostly be aimed to deliver increased lightfastness (an area where the Lucia Pro 1 ink set had fallen considerably behind the latest generations of Epson UltraChrome inks), expanded gamut, deeper blacks and greater resistance to scuffing thanks to the introduction of some kind of waxy ingredient.
Regarding supposedly improved lightfastness, as far as I know until now there is only a claim by Canon that prints can last “up to 200 years” with no visible fading. No independent third party like Wilhelm has backed up that claim yet though.
-
@Czornyj -- I'm wondering if you could explain your statement about the ink being "much improved" on the x600 series-- I hadn't heard anything specific about them changing the inkset between the variants of this model (or maybe I did hear that they had improved the yellow fading issue? It's hard to remember the quiet details) and I haven't seen any longevity studies comparing them. I do recall feeling like bronzing was definitely worse on the PRO x000s vs the Epson P20000 I was using at the time, but it wasn't enough of an issue to bother our clients at all-- and this is with or without full page gloss optimizer
x600 has new LUCIA Pro II
- MBK has much better dmax
- scratch resistance on photo papers is vastly improved and just as good as it gets
- neutrality of BW is improved
- yellow pigment is completely reformulated, and the new inkset has much better longevity, better than Epson Ultrachrome Pro and not as good as HP Vivera, but pretty close
It's hard for me to say if banding issues that you experienced are adressed, because I didn't encounter such issues neither in my x000 nor x600 printers. My observation is you need to find proper print media setting through trial and error, and the media setting suggested by 3rd party paper manufacturers are not necessarily always optimal.
-
I'm not seeing banding, rather I think there might be a fault in the Phototex. Dimensions are spot on, and the faults are almost an arc (lighter area 3-4mm across the width of the roll dropping to center, if that makes sense). For some reason, I've forgotten how t oupolad images here...
Images on Phototex, with a new photoblack profile are much more vibrant than 8400, but it still bruises on dense colour using the softest felt squeegies, though goes up nicely with a brayer roller (but takes 5x as long).
Only other issue I'm seeing on the 4600 is the number of head cleaning it runs - no headstrikes, but every 3-4 prints, and no sign of print deterioration prio to clean.
-
Only other issue I'm seeing on the 4600 is the number of head cleaning it runs - no headstrikes, but every 3-4 prints, and no sign of print deterioration prio to clean.
PRO-x600 has new automatic head alignment system that self checks frequently and makes head alignment without printing charts when needed. It also auto checks if all nozzles are unclogged. So it does self check cycles often, but doesn't really use ink - unless heads are clogged or misaligned, which is rare case. You can weight maintanance cart, or put a tissue and check it after such cycle to get the idea how small amount of ink it really uses for maintance.
-
x600 has new LUCIA Pro II
- MBK has much better dmax
That’s interesting: per Canon’s literature, MK is the only ink that has not been reformulated in the Lucia Pro II ink set (it’s the same ink as in the Lucia Pro I ink set). I had read that black density had been increased in the Canon Lucia Pro II ink set, but I had assumed they were referring to PK (which has been reformulated), not MK which is the same as before.
- scratch resistance on photo papers is vastly improved and just as good as it gets
- neutrality of BW is improved
- yellow pigment is completely reformulated, and the new inkset has much better longevity, better than Epson Ultrachrome Pro and not as good as HP Vivera, but pretty close
This is also interesting. What are you basing this on? As far as I know the only information about the Canon Lucia Pro II’s improved lightfastness is Canon’s own claim that permanence of prints made on Canon Photo Pro Platinum paper by using the new ink set is “up to 200 years” which sounds awfully vague and particularly is not backed up by tests made by any independent third-party testing organization like Wilhelm.
For reference, in 2020 Wilhelm ran permanence tests on certain Canson papers and the results were ratings between 96 and 138 years for color prints made with Epson UltraChrome HDX inks (the generation prior to the current UltraChrome PRO 10/12) and ratings between 37 and 86 years for color prints made with Canon Lucia Pro 1 inks, which therefore had quite a long way to go to catch up with Epson’s inks. Always for reference, in 2021 Wilhelm’s permanence ratings for color prints made on certain Epson papers with the current generation Epson UltraChrome PRO 10 inks were between 109 and 220 years.
Claiming without qualification that Canon Lucia Pro 2 inks perform better than Epson UltraChrome PRO inks is an important statement and extremely good news for Canon: what sources (other than Canon’s own marketing claims) do you have to back that up?
[snip]
-
That’s interesting: per Canon’s literature, MK is the only ink that has not been reformulated in the Lucia Pro II ink set (it’s the same ink as in the Lucia Pro I ink set). I had read that black density had been increased in the Canon Lucia Pro II ink set, but I had assumed they were referring to PK (which has been reformulated), not MK which is the same as before.
New reformulated MBK was already introduced in GP-2000/4000 and PRO-300, and that's the only reason of misleading statement it's not "new", but obviously it is and there's noticeable difference of substantial 0,5 dmax increase.
-
New reformulated MBK was already introduced in GP-2000/4000 and PRO-300, and that's the only reason of misleading statement it's not "new", but obviously it is and there's noticeable difference of substantial 0,5 dmax increase.
Ah, that explains it! Thank you - they sure could have made that clearer.
-
I used to trawl printplanet kind of regularly, but I got frustrated with the quality of discussion there (there were a lot of "help me I have no idea what I'm doing" type posts asking for help with problems that could easily be solved by RTFM).
That was probably me haha :P
-
...“up to 200 years” which sounds awfully vague and particularly is not backed up by tests made by any independent third-party testing organization like Wilhelm.
This may be at risk of generalized vagueposting but... Based on what I've read here in recent years, some have raised big question marks on that group's test methods/results. (Search this forum for the name, and maybe the word "trust" at the same time and you'll find some things to read...) So much so that I've been using other resources suggested here for reliable objective info (hopefully). Aardenberg is one I reference.
I wanted to mention this here because I recall one of those discussions was specifically around some "200-yr" claims for a particular brand, and some questionable dynamics with that brand. I don't recall the specifics now but when I saw you mention 200 years and that group's name it def triggered something in memory..., but it might be only coincidence.
Given my spotty memory on it at the moment it's probably best I let you explore it firsthand.
Sorry for the side-track from the main topic.
-
This may be at risk of generalized vagueposting but... Based on what I've read here in recent years, some have raised big question marks on that group's test methods/results. (Search this forum for the name, and maybe the word "trust" at the same time and you'll find some things to read...) So much so that I've been using other resources suggested here for reliable objective info (hopefully). Aardenberg is one I reference.
I wanted to mention this here because I recall one of those discussions was specifically around some "200-yr" claims for a particular brand, and some questionable dynamics with that brand. I don't recall the specifics now but when I saw you mention 200 years and that group's name it def triggered something in memory..., but it might be only coincidence.
Given my spotty memory on it at the moment it's probably best I let you explore it firsthand.
Sorry for the side-track from the main topic.
Thanks Kyle: I am aware and don’t disagree on the question marks as to the reliability of Wilhelm’s permanence tests and above all their testing methodology. I am a huge supporter of Mark McCormick’s outstanding work at Aardenburg, including his breakthrough research about LILIS and his push for updating permanence testing parameters so as to test for LILIS too, as it may potentially severely reduce Wilhelm’s permanence ratings for papers that include OBA’s (and of course TiO2). Sadly but sort of unsurprisingly, his efforts have had very little traction with paper manufacturers and distributors and as far as I know discussions with Wilhelm to update their testing methodology have long stopped.
However:
1. The biggest flaw (that I am aware of!) in Wilhelm’s testing methods only affects papers containing OBA’s (because LILIS only occurs when TiO2 is present at the same time as OBA’s) and therefore Wilhelm’s results for OBA-free papers should be (much?) more reliable than those for papers containing OBA’s.
2. As far as I am aware, Mark at Aardenburg has not released independent permanence testing reports in a while, so (always as far as I know) Wilhelm is currently the only source of “independent” third-party permanence tests of paper/ink combinations.
3. Whatever Wilhelm’s tests may be worth, they are an independent assessment of lightfastness of Canon’s and Epson’s inks when used in combination with certain papers. As I mentioned, the comparison between Epson’s penultimate generation UltraChrome inks versus Canon’s penultimate generation Lucia Pro inks when used in combination with several Canson papers (many of which are OBA-free) was overwhelmingly in favor of Epson UltraChrome inks. Also, Wilhelm’s tests on Epson’s latest generation UltraChrome PRO10 inks show a meaningful improvement over the previous generation UltraChrome HDX inks in terms of lightfastness: it is true that this second set of tests was made on a selection of Epson papers, but these included several Epson Legacy papers which are widely believed to be made by Canson based on their own papers, so this second test does appear to correlate to a large extent with that made on Canson papers.
4. Having said all of the above, my point stands that an unqualified assertion that Canon Lucia Pro 2 inks perform better in terms of lightfastness than the current generation of Epson UltraChrome inks is an important statement, but I have yet to hear on what that assertion is based, as I am not aware that any independent permanence tests have been run on Canon Lucia Pro 2 inks and I certainly hope that the assertion is not based on Canon’s own marketing claims, because if Wilhelm’s testing parameters may be questionable, should we instead take Canon’s own claims as unquestionable? And even if we did, shouldn’t we then consider Epson’s own permanence claims for their UltraChrome PRO10 inks (which coincidentally match Canon’s) equally unquestionable?
So, all I am asking is whether there are any objective parameters backing up a statement that Canon Lucia Pro 2 inks outperform Epson UltraChrome PRO10/12 inks in terms of lightfastness.
-
So, all I am asking is whether there are any objective parameters backing up a statement that Canon Lucia Pro 2 inks outperform Epson UltraChrome PRO10/12 inks in terms of lightfastness.
For sure, I'd be asking the same thing.
Btw sorry if it sounded like I was dismissing your question on the thread's topic, not my intent. It was only a side concern about the reliability and objectivity of that particular source. And indeed it was the questions surrounding objectivity/independence that stuck in my mind most from things I read around here..., but whether they are merely conjecture or not I don't know. It got the impression from it all that a brand(s) might be sponsoring "testing" there purely for marketing the name with their printer/ink claims, and then never actually releasing any data (or it maybe never even being done).
Sorry for the vagueposting, I'll go back to lurking now lol :-X
-
For sure, I'd be asking the same thing.
Btw sorry if it sounded like I was dismissing your question on the thread's topic, not my intent. It was only a side concern about the reliability and objectivity of that particular source. And indeed it was the questions surrounding objectivity/independence that stuck in my mind most from things I read around here..., but whether they are merely conjecture or not I don't know. It got the impression from it all that a brand(s) might be sponsoring "testing" there purely for marketing the name with their printer/ink claims, and then never actually releasing any data (or it maybe never even being done).
Sorry for the vagueposting, I'll go back to lurking now lol :-X
Thank you - absolutely no need to apologize for anything! We are just chatting about printers and inks :-)
I was just trying to better explain my viewpoint.
I understand the reservations around Wilhelm’s testing methods and “independence”. But since (to my knowledge) they are currently the only let’s call them third-party (not to use the word “independent”) testing lab for ink permanence, if we disregard their testing results because we consider them unreliable (which I am perfectly happy to do), then we are left with nothing else but the ink manufacturers’ marketing claims as to the expected longevity of their own inks, which are certainly as dubious as Wilhelm’s test results.
So if this is the situation we are in (unless of course I am missing something), then I think that the best we can do is to refrain from trying to establish whether ink set X is more or less lightfast than ink set Y (because we have no reliable data to support that conclusion), and just be happy that both Canon and Epson continue developing their respective ink formulations and continue releasing new generations of inks that improve over previous generations.
Personally I am amazed at how outstanding Canon’s and Epson’s current lineup of printers (subject perhaps to a couple of exceptions) and inks are and the quality of the prints they are capable of producing.
Just my 2 cents of course.
-
I understand the reservations around Wilhelm’s testing methods and “independence”. But since (to my knowledge) they are currently the only let’s call them third-party (not to use the word “independent”) testing lab for ink permanence, if we disregard their testing results because we consider them unreliable (which I am perfectly happy to do), then we are left with nothing else but the ink manufacturers’ marketing claims as to the expected longevity of their own inks, which are certainly as dubious as Wilhelm’s test results.
I guess Aardenburg hasn't released anything for relatively recent printers/ink/media? I still use legacy HP printers so their old results is all I've looked at. I can't find a way to sort their test reports database by date (no date sort/filter option), and 2017 is the most recent year that shows up in the text search results.
If Wilhelm's results for archival/stable papers are reliable then I guess can use those for a rough A-to-B comparison between printers/inksets like you said. But I gather even those aren't available for some relatively recent printers because neither they nor the brands released the results, like you highlighted in this thread (or they only bothered with non-archival / coated papers etc).
-
I guess Aardenburg hasn't released anything for relatively recent printers/ink/media? I still use legacy HP printers so their old results is all I've looked at. I can't find a way to sort their test reports database by date (no date sort/filter option), and 2017 is the most recent year that shows up in the text search results.
If Wilhelm's results for archival/stable papers are reliable then I guess can use those for a rough A-to-B comparison between printers/inksets like you said. But I gather even those aren't available for some relatively recent printers because neither they nor the brands released the results, like you highlighted in this thread (or they only bothered with non-archival / coated papers etc).
Yes, that’s my understanding too: if I am not mistaken, Mark at Aardenburg has lately been focusing on other stuff and just like you said I am not aware of him having published recent lightfastness test results (my understanding is that running those tests is expensive and whoever does it needs funding from someone, which makes things more complicated if funding comes from the manufacturer of the products that would be tested).
Sadly there appears to be no reliable data set to consider when it comes to assessing permanence expectations for any ink/paper combination.
-
Thank you all for many useful comments.
I am waiting for a final prise quote from my dealer on both the 2600 and 2400. From the input here and elsewhere, I expect to pull the trigger on one of them.
-
Thank you all for many useful comments.
I am waiting for a final prise quote from my dealer on both the 2600 and 2400. From the input here and elsewhere, I expect to pull the trigger on one of them.
How did it go?
-
I have ordered the Canon pro 4600 with the extra roll. Expecting delivery in a couple of weeks!!
Meanwhile I am switching parts between my 24 and 44 inch Z to see if I can maintian one of them for a while to use up ink. I can not print large images because both belts have started to dropp small particles on the print every once in a while.
-
Cool, can't wait to hear what you think of the Canon 4600 series compared to the HP Z3100. I've been casually browsing about what my next printer might be (*if* there's a next printer) and the Canon 2600 seems to be the leading option, assuming it has a built-in spectro for profiling like the HPs do.
Yeah belt flakes are a real pain in the HPs. I recently re-belted both my Z3100 and Z3200 so they should be good for a little while.
But I also recently destroyed most of the heads plus the carriage PCA in my Z3100. I got it running again but I've exhausted my supply of good MK-R heads so it's a floor ornament now. At this point I'm probably shuffling supplies to the Z3200 to keep it going until exhausted. It was a rescue printer that I've barely used since I got it running again, because the Z3100 was still working so well (better gamut with less effort, except for red ofc).
-
Unfortunately the Canon does not have a spectro.
I am going to miss the ability to make my own profiles like I can on the HP.
-
Well that's disappointing :-\ For some reason I thought it did.
Now I'm wondering if any current printers have a spectro...
-
Yes, that’s my understanding too: if I am not mistaken, Mark at Aardenburg has lately been focusing on other stuff and just like you said I am not aware of him having published recent lightfastness test results (my understanding is that running those tests is expensive and whoever does it needs funding from someone, which makes things more complicated if funding comes from the manufacturer of the products that would be tested).
Sadly there appears to be no reliable data set to consider when it comes to assessing permanence expectations for any ink/paper combination.
I sent him a note several months ago and he told me that he's stopped doing the permancy studies as there has been little interest from manufacturers or the larger public. He's keeping the website up for now but closed the business side down.
Alan
-
I sent him a note several months ago and he told me that he's stopped doing the permancy studies as there has been little interest from manufacturers or the larger public. He's keeping the website up for now but closed the business side down.
That's a bummer. But I guess not surprising, given the general waning of things in the printing sphere. And the broader market (or industry) doesn't seem too fussed about longevity of things.