Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review

[aladroer]

Many thanks for your Canon Pro-1000 and Epson SC-P800 reviews Mark. I'm someone who has never printed and will not do it with a high frequency but wants to start doing it with a 17" printer. From your reviews I conclude that the Canon may be giving less operating issues (paper feeding, clogging) and be easier to operate. I'm I wrong? If this wasn't really problematic and printing 1-2 times a month was not generating clogging problems, Epson's front feeding for baryta paper seems better for me since accessing the rear part of my printer won't be easy. I will be printing from Lightroom and for the time being, using paper rolls is not a priority for me.

[Mark D Segal]

Many thanks for your Canon Pro-1000 and Epson SC-P800 reviews Mark. I'm someone who has never printed and will not do it with a high frequency but wants to start doing it with a 17" printer. From your reviews I conclude that the Canon may be giving less operating issues (paper feeding, clogging) and be easier to operate. I'm I wrong? If this wasn't really problematic and printing 1-2 times a month was not generating clogging problems, Epson's front feeding for baryta paper seems better for me since accessing the rear part of my printer won't be easy. I will be printing from Lightroom and for the time being, using paper rolls is not a priority for me.

I should emphasize that in neither review did I make any statements about the performance of these printers in respect of clogging, because these are new products with insufficient evidence upon which to come to any conclusions about this aspect of performance. The facts we now know are confined only to HOW these printers manage maintenance to mitigate clogging. With an Epson professional printer, if you run a nozzle check and you see missing bars you launch one or more cleaning cycles to clear the nozzles. With the Canon Pro-1000, there are three approaches for this maintenance: (1) mandatory self-cleaning - beyond user control, (2) redundant nozzles in the print head and (3) manual cleaning as for the Epson. There isn't more to be said about the implications either way yet. If you are only printing a couple of times a month, bear in mind that both are pigment printers and both may need or implement cleaning when you fire them up, depending on a number of conditions.

Apart from that, as you don't need a roll-holder the two options are viable for you. As I mentioned in my review, I found the Canon paper feed in this model to be the easiest and most reliable I have ever experienced. Both printers need some back space to handle the thicker Baryta papers using the manual feeds, but not very much. If back space is a real constraint then you would want to check carefully with dealers which model needs more under what printing conditions and whether you can manage it relative to your requirements.

[Nick Walker]

I have been using Epson Pro printers for 17 years. My 3880 lasted 4 years before a clogged head problem, it wouldn't respond to cleaning solutions, my 3800 only lasted 2 years.

I therefore decided to purchase the Canon Pro-1000. So far I have been very impressed with its operation and print quality. Comparing prints (same image) between the 3800 and Pro-1000, produced via Lightroom, the differences are subtle.

All of my Epson printers left cog wheel marks on plain black (saturated) backgrounds (regardless of any platen gap, drying time, etc, settings) - to be fair the print had to be turned obliquely to the light to see the obvious rows of dotted lines. So far there is no evidence of such marks from the Pro 1000. I suspect the air feed only keeps the image flat and does not involve feeding the paper through the machine - I could be wrong on this.

The paper loading on the Pro-1000 couldn't be more user friendly and accurate - I would occasionally get slightly skewed prints from the Epsons. I also like the way it uses a motorised system to agitate the ink cartridges - instead of having to remove cartridges by hand to agitate.

I don't print panos but I am sure that someone will come up with a solution to overcome this limitation at some point. Of course only time will tell how long the latest print head technology in the Pro 1000 will last for but at least its replaceable if I want to keep the machine and not upgrade to the next generation printer.

[aladroer]

Many thanks for your informative responses Mark and N. Walker! Considering the high print quality of both printers, usability makes the difference.

[Czornyj]

I should emphasize that in neither review did I make any statements about the performance of these printers in respect of clogging, because these are new products with insufficient evidence upon which to come to any conclusions about this aspect of performance. The facts we now know are confined only to HOW these printers manage maintenance to mitigate clogging. With an Epson professional printer, if you run a nozzle check and you see missing bars you launch one or more cleaning cycles to clear the nozzles. With the Canon Pro-1000, there are three approaches for this maintenance: (1) mandatory self-cleaning - beyond user control, (2) redundant nozzles in the print head and (3) manual cleaning as for the Epson. There isn't more to be said about the implications either way yet. If you are only printing a couple of times a month, bear in mind that both are pigment printers and both may need or implement cleaning when you fire them up, depending on a number of conditions.

Major difference between Canon and Epson is head technology - thermal in case of Canon, piezo in case of Epson. Thermal head nozzle is several dozens smaller and produces more pressure than piezo nozzle, where there's large membrane chamber, with lots of place where air bubbles may gather, which absorbs pressure produced by piezo membrane. Smaller size with limited potential for air bubbles to gather and ability to produce higher ink pressure makes thermal nozzle less prone to clogging.

Due to compact size of thermal nozzle the print head had has very high nozzle density (1200dpi). The Canon prints at 600dpi using only every second nozzle, so each nozzle is backed up by a spare nozzle - when clogged nozzle is detected, it is compensated by the back up nozzle in the next head pass. This completely eliminates the possibility of banding while printing.

Furthermore, when the printer is on, it's maintaining print head and agitating ink carts. I'm not sure about new iPF PRO series, but in former x300-400 there was even a silicone tray, from which the silicon was applied by wipers to the print head to keep moisture.

The combination of head design that is generally less prone to clogging, clogged nozzle compensation system, automatic print head and ink cart maintenance and the fact, that there are separate channels for MK and PK blacks results in noticeable savings of ink and time used for head maintenance, and virtually eliminates the clogging problem from our lives. All you need is to keep printer on, it will take care of itself.

[NigelC]

Although the review picks out the ease of paper loading on the Canon vis a vis the Epson P800 I wonder whether the Canon is less prone to headstrikes than I find the Epson 3800 to be (although acknowledging this is usually a result of the characteristics of a particular paper or the fact that the edges have curled, not to mention incorrect paper settings). Would be interesting to know this although probably academic as the weight of the Pro-1000, rather than the footprint would rule it out for me. BTW, in the UK the Pro-1000 and the P800 are about the same price (£999 Canon v £939 Epson) when you factor in the cost of the extra ink.

[GrahamBy]

All you need is to keep printer on, it will take care of itself.

Marcin, really "on", or just plugged in? I'm guessing as long as it's plugged in it will keep track of time and date and hence not over-do whatever cleaning rituals it has to do... but actual cleaning actions will only happen when the light is on. Can you confirm?

[BillK]

If left on in sleep mode, the Canon 8300/8400 wakes up daily to agitate the ink cartridges. I have seen them wake up and do a cleaning cycle
but this is much rarer. I like to print a small test print that utilizes all colors at least every 4 days. This seems to minimize cleaning cycles and keep things flowing for me.
IMO the user experience with clogging is much nicer with these canon printers than my experience with my old Epson 7900.

[Czornyj]

Although the review picks out the ease of paper loading on the Canon vis a vis the Epson P800 I wonder whether the Canon is less prone to headstrikes than I find the Epson 3800 to be (although acknowledging this is usually a result of the characteristics of a particular paper or the fact that the edges have curled, not to mention incorrect paper settings). Would be interesting to know this although probably academic as the weight of the Pro-1000, rather than the footprint would rule it out for me. BTW, in the UK the Pro-1000 and the P800 are about the same price (£999 Canon v £939 Epson) when you factor in the cost of the extra ink.

When I was printing with a PRO-1000 during trade show I had an old box of wetted or improperly stored Baryta with edges so extremely curled upwards, that I didn't even think the printer will manage to feed it from the tray. At first as I expected the print head was smearing the paper surface and wrinkled the edges, but I enabled strongest vacuum pressure mode, and then it printed the whole box of paper smoothly, without a single scratch mark, all from automatic feeder. I knew what my large format iPFs with vacuum were capable of, but nonetheless I was quite impressed.

[howardm]

that top photo puts the machine's size into perspective.  Tiny, it isnt

[Czornyj]

that top photo puts the machine's size into perspective.  Tiny, it isnt

The printer is massive, robust, and looks really impressive - but it's not really that bad, still a tiny printer when you put it next to 24-44" LFP

[Ernst Dinkla]

The printer is massive, robust, and looks really impressive - but it's not really that bad, still a tiny printer when you put it next to 24-44" LFP

LFP = Large Format Presenter?

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Czornyj]

LFP = Large Format Presenter?

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
January 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

Large Format Presenter was even larger - above 70" high

[howardm]

Is there a printer in that photo?

How did they find a dress that is the *perfect* color to completely blow out the R channel ?

Make sure to pick up the zip tie that fell on the floor

Hat tip!  Superior booth babe!

[nirpat89]

The only thing that would preclude me from buying this printer is the fact that the length of the print is limited arbitrarily to 22 inches.  Now I am seeing an update on the printer review page that Canon is planning to increase it to 25.5 inches, which would be great if true.  I do not see any other place about this supposed plan for a new firmware.  No press release from Canon either.   I am wondering how much faith to put on this.  I do not want to buy the printer and find that this new firmware does not show up.

Any thoughts?

[Mark D Segal]

The only thing that would preclude me from buying this printer is the fact that the length of the print is limited arbitrarily to 22 inches.  Now I am seeing an update on the printer review page that Canon is planning to increase it to 25.5 inches, which would be great if true.  I do not see any other place about this supposed plan for a new firmware.  No press release from Canon either.   I am wondering how much faith to put on this.  I do not want to buy the printer and find that this new firmware does not show up.

Any thoughts?

We published that update on the authority of Canon Inc. 

[nirpat89]

Thanks...I didn't mean to question the veracity of the source of your report.  Just a little surprised that Canon has found this info not important enough to send out in the form of an official press release, at least on their own website.  Well, may be that is how Canon does things.  I will probably just wait until they start offering in their new machines. 

[howardm]

I'm not.  They're not going to do a press release or any such until the firmware is available to the general user population.

Until that point, it's possible that some marketing guy @ Canon decides 'nope'.  I've been burned by too many 'we'll upgrade it'.  While I do believe this one will come to pass, the proof is in the download

[u2jimbo]

My Epson R3000's PK ink line is dropping large puddles of ink on my prints.  All other inks seem fine, so I have been using up my inventory by focusing on matte photo paper printing while I investigate a replacement printer.

I am interested in acquiring either the P800 or the Pro-1000 as a replacement.  So far, choosing one over the other seems a matter of 'picking my poison'.  However, there are a couple of questions I have not seen discussed and could possibly have an impact on my choice:

1.  the P800 has 9 inks and no clear overcoat; the Pro-1000 has 11 inks plus a clear overcoat.  Do people imagine the added inks of Canons printer would have any impact on overall cost of operation? (my thinking suggests 'no' if one assumes the same volume of ink ((all colors)) is laid down per print by both printers. But I have no way of knowing whether the same volumes are laid down.)  However, using the chroma optimizer is an added cost if it is used.

2.  How important/valuable is having a chroma optimizer capability?  Would identical prints produced on a P800 and a Pro-1000 be obviously different/better due to the chroma optimizer laid down by the Canon printer?

I am an amateur photographer.  I do not sell prints.  The pleasure I derive from photography is moving up the learning curve as I further my knowledge, skill and experience.  I would want to acquire the printer that offers the most opportunity to move up that curve.

Thanks in advance for any insight / guidance.

[Mark D Segal]

My Epson R3000's PK ink line is dropping large puddles of ink on my prints.  All other inks seem fine, so I have been using up my inventory by focusing on matte photo paper printing while I investigate a replacement printer.

I am interested in acquiring either the P800 or the Pro-1000 as a replacement.  So far, choosing one over the other seems a matter of 'picking my poison'.  However, there are a couple of questions I have not seen discussed and could possibly have an impact on my choice:

1.  the P800 has 9 inks and no clear overcoat; the Pro-1000 has 11 inks plus a clear overcoat.  Do people imagine the added inks of Canons printer would have any impact on overall cost of operation? (my thinking suggests 'no' if one assumes the same volume of ink ((all colors)) is laid down per print by both printers. But I have no way of knowing whether the same volumes are laid down.)  However, using the chroma optimizer is an added cost if it is used.

2.  How important/valuable is having a chroma optimizer capability?  Would identical prints produced on a P800 and a Pro-1000 be obviously different/better due to the chroma optimizer laid down by the Canon printer?

I am an amateur photographer.  I do not sell prints.  The pleasure I derive from photography is moving up the learning curve as I further my knowledge, skill and experience.  I would want to acquire the printer that offers the most opportunity to move up that curve.

Thanks in advance for any insight / guidance.

It's not picking poison. With a bit of perspective you would appreciate what marvelous printing technology we have at our fingertips these days.

There's no point "imagining" anything about ink costs. Either we have the data to establish what it costs, or we don't. In the case of Canon a utility for the printer provides it; Epson does not. Therefore they cannot be compared. I wouldn't think of the chroma optimizer as an "extra cost". It is simply part of the inkset and costed-in along with the other inks.

You may wish to re-read what I said in my review of the Pro-1000 about perceived print quality from the 4900, P800, and Pro-1000 printers.

Learning to print isn't about the printer; regardless of the printer model it's 99% about the initial quality of your photographs and your ability to prepare the photos for print using your photo editing application.