Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review  (Read 41271 times)

iCanvas

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 157
Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« on: March 10, 2016, 09:35:36 am »

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your review. Can you include the quality difference between "Standard" printing and "High" quality printing? Other reviews have stated that there is a visual difference. I have read reviews about the Epson P800 that the quality between "1440" and "2880" printing is almost indistinguishable. Is that the case with this Canon? Is it using more ink for the "High" quality? If that is the case, then it would seem like the Epson P800 could get the best quality at 1440 using less ink. It also seems that the PRO-1000 is using the same printhead that is in the PRO-2000 and PRO-4000. Thanks again,

Gar
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12509
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2016, 10:10:26 am »

Hi Gar,

When I test a printer I like to test it at its highest quality to see fully what it is capable of doing. As well, I never print at anything less than highest quality. Whether or not it uses a little bit more ink I don't care. I'm aiming for reliable high quality every time. I have no way of knowing whether in fact it uses more ink because as I mentioned in the article the software for measuring ink consumption is not yet released, and certainly in the case of Epson P800 users aren't being given any such information. That said, with the Epson printers in general, I've been informed that there is no material difference in ink usage between 1440 and 2880. Don't come to any conclusions yet about comparative ink consumption between these printers because there simply isn't enough evidence to do so. I recommend not depending on reviews for judgments about whether print quality differs between these settings. Some of this is objective, but some of it is in the eye of the beholder. It is best to make one's own test prints at the various settings and see what one finds acceptable.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Ralph Eisenberg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 83
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2016, 12:20:39 pm »

Mark,

Thanks very much for the Canon Pro-1000 review as well as the earlier one for the Epson P800. Both are very informative and helpful.

Ralph
Logged
Ralph

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12509
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2016, 12:35:35 pm »

You are welcome Ralph. Glad you found them useful.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

BradSmith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2016, 12:58:35 pm »

Mark,
As always, a thorough review and very well written.  Thank you for the large effort that goes into something like this.
Brad
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12509
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2016, 01:00:27 pm »

You are welcome Brad, much appreciated.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

BradSmith

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2016, 01:11:07 pm »

Does anyone have an idea as to why printer manufacturers limit the maximum length of print? Is it fear of overheating?  Paper skew?  Or...?
Brad
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12509
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2016, 01:15:59 pm »

It's a very good question, and all the more so that alternative printing software - LSI's PrinTao for example, which we reviewed on this site recently, provides for extremely long length printing on supported printers that would otherwise be much more limited in this respect; unfortunately, however, PrinTao does not support the Pro-1000 printer yet.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

dchew

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 975
    • Dave Chew Photography
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2016, 03:40:37 pm »

Mark,
Great and informative job as always!

Now I'm rooting for you to review the P10,000!
:)

Dave
Logged

GrahamBy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
    • Some of my photos
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2016, 03:56:02 pm »

Thanks Mark, nice throrough review. I'm assuming you made all the measurements with the CO switched to "all over" since you recommended against the ecenomy setting?

Also, if the pro-2000 and pro-4000 use the same inks and the same print-head and can print with out (real) limits on the image length, it would surely be trivial for Canon to allow that driver to be used with the 1000. In any case, it's hard to see it as other than a commercial decision, but even then it seems a very strange one.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12509
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2016, 04:06:06 pm »

Mark,
Great and informative job as always!

Now I'm rooting for you to review the P10,000!
:)

Dave

Thanks Dave - you thinking of buying one of those? No doubt it would review nicely, but probably also one of these machines best adapted to people running high volume. As a practical matter I would need to do the work up at Epson's HQ here, as no way that beast would fit into my place. Something to think about once the next piece in the pipeline is done with.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12509
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2016, 04:08:33 pm »

Thanks Mark, nice throrough review. I'm assuming you made all the measurements with the CO switched to "all over" since you recommended against the ecenomy setting?

Also, if the pro-2000 and pro-4000 use the same inks and the same print-head and can print with out (real) limits on the image length, it would surely be trivial for Canon to allow that driver to be used with the 1000. In any case, it's hard to see it as other than a commercial decision, but even then it seems a very strange one.

You are welcome Graham. I have yet to hear the rationale for the length limitation, though I know Canon is listening to all the feedback, so let us see what happens in the fullness of time.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12509
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2016, 04:59:22 pm »

Oh - forgot to mention - yes, of course - CO set to cover the whole page. And that uses *a lot* of CO! But it makes sense - why leave gaps that can show up as gloss differential?
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Kenneth Sky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2016, 05:35:44 pm »

Mark, Thanks for this thorough review. A you have inferred the P800 and the Pro1000 are probably the biggest printers an enthusiast can comfortably have for home use. But in both reviews you have omitted what you think about space requirements to when loading 17" paper. Also a price comparison with an evaluation of the included cartridges would be helpful. From the videos, it would seem like both units need to sit on a free standing desk or mobile cart.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12509
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2016, 05:50:36 pm »

Hi Kenneth,

Thanks, glad you enjoyed the review. Actually, an Epson 4900 is bigger than both these other printers and also qualifies for home use - depends on the home, but my space for all this stuff is actually quite limited and I manage it. The P800 or the Pro-1000 need less than 10 inches of space behind them for attaching the roll holder or opening the back paper feed, respectively. I believe the manufacturers' websites may provide this information. As usual with printers, one needs front space to open the receiving trays - again their websites probably provide those specs. You can sit the printers on any table or counter that provides a stable support for them. As I've mentioned repeatedly in both the P800 and Pro-1000 reviews, it is premature to discuss costs of ink. Several key factors enter into that determination and we simply don't have adequate data for reliable comparison, let alone stand alone cost per print estimates from either one of those printers.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Kenneth Sky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #15 on: March 10, 2016, 09:01:55 pm »

Mark
Thanks for the space requirement data. With regard to the cost of inks, I was referring to the fact that some printers are accompanied with starter cartridges that are only partially full and are mostly consumed on initialization to remove air or liquid from the tubing. By the time you get started printing you are looking at several hundred dollars getting new ink carts. Obviously, if you have to ask the cost of running these printers, you can't afford it ;) Still, if the output is nearly identical, the decision may come down to cost and ease of operation.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12509
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #16 on: March 11, 2016, 08:07:32 am »

Mark
Thanks for the space requirement data. With regard to the cost of inks, I was referring to the fact that some printers are accompanied with starter cartridges that are only partially full and are mostly consumed on initialization to remove air or liquid from the tubing. By the time you get started printing you are looking at several hundred dollars getting new ink carts. Obviously, if you have to ask the cost of running these printers, you can't afford it ;) Still, if the output is nearly identical, the decision may come down to cost and ease of operation.

The initializing of the printer consumes ink to fill the lines and the rest of the ink transport system from cartridge to printhead. This is obviously essential for any printer. All of that ink gets used for making prints in a flow sense, (but remains as "overhead in the lines" in a stock sense). There is some drainage to the maintenance tank, but from what I am told, not much. Both the Epson P800 and the Canon Pro-1000 have 80ml cartridge capacity, but the initial fill for the Epson is 64ml and that for the Canon the full 80ml. But the Epson printer costs several hundred dollars less than the Canon. US 1300 (Canon) vs currently US 995 (Epson) at B&H. Furthermore, for those people to whom the cost of printing may well matter, it would be much more important to know how much ink, on average, each of these printers uses to print a sq. ft. of your favorite paper. That difference could be minimal or quite important, but we just can't say yet. So much to say, for those who need to know these costs, one needs to see the whole picture projected with reliable assumptions over the service life of the printers to know which is likely to be the more economical choice.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Kenneth Sky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 452
    • http://
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #17 on: March 11, 2016, 10:33:14 am »

Well that's a significant difference in up front cost. (Close to 25%). The only advantage the Canon has is the Epson "reputation" for clogged nozzles - and with this new system that problem may have been overcome. I realize that Canon will probably take advantage of early adopters, but in a two horse race price will certainly be a major factor.
Logged

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1163
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #18 on: March 11, 2016, 11:14:34 am »

...Furthermore, for those people to whom the cost of printing may well matter, it would be much more important to know how much ink, on average, each of these printers uses to print a sq. ft. of your favorite paper. That difference could be minimal or quite important, but we just can't say yet. So much to say, for those who need to know these costs, one needs to see the whole picture projected with reliable assumptions over the service life of the printers to know which is likely to be the more economical choice.

The estimates provided by the printer companies and by third party reviews like those at Red River Paper are based on continuous throughput studies (i.e., print a couple hundred prints in a row, and measure how much ink has been used by simple weighing procedures). These studies provide "best case" results and do not capture the wasted ink volumes that will never hit the paper in lower frequency usage conditions and which greatly affect the amortized cost per print in more typical home or small studio printing sessions.  The continuous throughput types of studies all tend to yield quite similar results, with projections of about 1.5- 2 ml per sq. ft. depending on image content. Hence,  I don't think the specific printer model, screening patterns, print head, and ink formulation technologies are all that serious of variables in how much ink hits the paper when making a high quality inkjet print.  The real wildcard variables in total cost of ownership and cost per print are actually both frequency and volume (i.e quantify of prints) of use.  These two variables are highly dependent on the enduser's personal print making routines.  If you print almost daily even if only one or two small prints, you will come reasonably close to those continuous throughput estimates of ink consumption. If you print only weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly, and only in low quantities of prints per session, then the ink consumption starts to skyrocket alarmingly due to increased printer maintenance cycles, often not initiated by the user but automatically in some way by the printer.

My Canon Pro-1, for example, uses simple clock timer rules to start a cleaning sequence behind the scenes prior to feeding the first print of the day if the time since last use is over 2.5 days. It will use several ml of ink to get itself ready to print, and the user will experience a few minutes of whirring sounds before the first print actually begins to feed, the long wait to feed the first print a sure indication that maintenance is being done.  A single print per day on the Pro-1 will ward off this preemptive printer cleaning cycle. I've had mixed results on whether a simple nozzle check will suffice in lieu of an actual print. More study is necessary.  Nevertheless, with almost daily use you will come very close to the 1.5-2ml/sq. ft ink consumption value, but an 8x10 inch borderless print every 3 days will now consume about 8 or more ml total (approximately 1.2 ml for the ink hitting the paper, and about 7ml going into the waste tank).  Managing this excessive consumption therefore requires a combination of both frequency and print quantity strategies implemented by the end user.   For example, if you can't print daily but you can make several or more prints in one printing session once a week, you will be amortizing the wasted ink over those several prints, not just the first print, and that will help to get the costs per print down significantly.  For the Canon Pro-1 at least, those clock timer rules lead to more aggressive cleanings preemptively undertaken by the printer, culminating in the mother of all cleaning cycles at 45 days of non use (that fact documented in the service manual).

It was this low frequency usage scenario that really bit me hard on my first set of cartridges in the Pro-1 and got me interested in running more cost amortization studies as Mark S has alluded to in this thread. These studies take much more time (real time with real usage scenarios) than most reviewers can accomplish since the printers in review are typically loaners.  I buy my printers and can therefore perform those extended studies, but it's a labor of love with every print, cartridge, and other material costs being documented in a spreadsheet, so I haven't been able to published very much on the subject yet.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Logged

howardm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2016, 11:23:04 am »

I think both mfgr's have sort of shot themselves in the foot here.  Epson by not getting rid of the d@mn PK/MK switch, reducing the #ml of ink (64 from 80) and the stupid expensive roll holder that should be $40 (on a good day).  Canon by not making the -1000 more of a 5100 replacement (read longer prints and/or roll adaptor) but pricing it close to 5100 or Ep4900 category.  If the -1000 had a little more (real roll support), they'd have sold a lot to all the unhappy 4900 users but it might well have cannibalized sales of the new 24" 2000 model.

I can envision 2 product teams @ Canon, one for the iPF's and the other for the PRO's and them trying to convince management what the product lines should be.  The iPF team didn't make a good case for the 5100NG (next generation) whereas the PRO team sold them on -1000.  Once they did that, there wasn't going to be a 5100NG.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Up