Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review  (Read 55956 times)

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #60 on: May 26, 2016, 10:17:14 pm »

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.

Quite to the contrary, this is an important matter to them.

No mechanical changes to the printers are required for this update - it is all firmware/driver related, and when they publish them they will be usable on all the Pro-1000s sold.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #61 on: May 26, 2016, 10:24:54 pm »

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'. 

That's not how decisions get made in such a company. It's "quite a bit" more structured, collective and procedural. I have very considerable confidence that this will be done - the only uncertainty I'm aware of is the timing. I'll leave it that; everyone of course is free to believe what they want to believe.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

u2jimbo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
    • exploring photography
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #62 on: May 27, 2016, 01:10:46 am »

Mark, thanks for your response.  I think my "pick your poison" comment was a poor choice since it suggested to you that I had to choose between two poor options.  That was not my intention.  Nor, is it my belief.  I believe I am confronted with making a choice between two excellent machines whose printing capabilities are very high - though, per your review comments, not up to par with the 4900.

The 'poison' was having to choose based upon lower importance issues/capabilities such as roll feeder/panorama capability, nozzle clogging potential, imposed margin / print length restrictions (which appears Canon will be resolving), price-at-the-moment, etc.

My question about inks and the chroma optimizer was essentially my attempt at trying to break a tie.  Re-reading your review leaves me believing Canon's 11 inks (at ~$60 each) provides the equivalent output to Epson's 9 inks (at ~$55 each) giving Epson the edge on ink cost.

I still don't know how to value the chroma optimizer.  I don't recall if your review indicated that the chroma optimizer had been applied to all Canon prints compared / measured with the Epson prints.  If they were not, then it is an open question.  If they were, then it seems to afford very minor visible benefit while adding cost and complexity.

In any case, if only 1% of the quality of the final print is contributed by the printer, with 99% coming from the quality of the image capture and the image editing, then the decision really isn't very important.  Thanks!  I can stop worrying about it.
Logged

Czornyj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1950
    • zarzadzaniebarwa.pl
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #63 on: May 27, 2016, 01:52:44 am »

Mark, thanks for your response.  I think my "pick your poison" comment was a poor choice since it suggested to you that I had to choose between two poor options.  That was not my intention.  Nor, is it my belief.  I believe I am confronted with making a choice between two excellent machines whose printing capabilities are very high - though, per your review comments, not up to par with the 4900.

The 'poison' was having to choose based upon lower importance issues/capabilities such as roll feeder/panorama capability, nozzle clogging potential, imposed margin / print length restrictions (which appears Canon will be resolving), price-at-the-moment, etc.

My question about inks and the chroma optimizer was essentially my attempt at trying to break a tie.  Re-reading your review leaves me believing Canon's 11 inks (at ~$60 each) provides the equivalent output to Epson's 9 inks (at ~$55 each) giving Epson the edge on ink cost.

I still don't know how to value the chroma optimizer.  I don't recall if your review indicated that the chroma optimizer had been applied to all Canon prints compared / measured with the Epson prints.  If they were not, then it is an open question.  If they were, then it seems to afford very minor visible benefit while adding cost and complexity.

In any case, if only 1% of the quality of the final print is contributed by the printer, with 99% coming from the quality of the image capture and the image editing, then the decision really isn't very important.  Thanks!  I can stop worrying about it.

Canon uses similar amount of ink (including Chroma Optimizer) as Epson, which makes the cost per print comparable. It doesn't waste ink for PK<>MK switches, and uses less ink for head maintenance, so the overall running cost should be lower. The effects of Chroma Optimizer are subtle, but discernible - less bronzing and gloss differential, better scratch resistance. And the print head is user replaceable, so in case of failure you just change it instead of dumping the whole printer - like in case of your R3000.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2016, 02:10:11 am by Czornyj »
Logged
Marcin Kałuża | [URL=http://zarzadzaniebarwa

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #64 on: May 27, 2016, 10:02:59 am »

Mark, thanks for your response.  I think my "pick your poison" comment was a poor choice since it suggested to you that I had to choose between two poor options.  That was not my intention.  Nor, is it my belief.  I believe I am confronted with making a choice between two excellent machines whose printing capabilities are very high - though, per your review comments, not up to par with the 4900.

The 'poison' was having to choose based upon lower importance issues/capabilities such as roll feeder/panorama capability, nozzle clogging potential, imposed margin / print length restrictions (which appears Canon will be resolving), price-at-the-moment, etc.

My question about inks and the chroma optimizer was essentially my attempt at trying to break a tie.  Re-reading your review leaves me believing Canon's 11 inks (at ~$60 each) provides the equivalent output to Epson's 9 inks (at ~$55 each) giving Epson the edge on ink cost.

I still don't know how to value the chroma optimizer.  I don't recall if your review indicated that the chroma optimizer had been applied to all Canon prints compared / measured with the Epson prints.  If they were not, then it is an open question.  If they were, then it seems to afford very minor visible benefit while adding cost and complexity.

In any case, if only 1% of the quality of the final print is contributed by the printer, with 99% coming from the quality of the image capture and the image editing, then the decision really isn't very important.  Thanks!  I can stop worrying about it.

OK, time to clarify and sharpen a few points here. The Epson 4900 has a wider gamut in limited parts of the spectrum. Otherwise and for a great many photos not needing that extra gamut, there is very difference of print quality to tell between these printers, save to say that both the newer Epson and Canon inksets can reproduce a slightly deeper maximum black than the Epson 4900. I do not recommend buying an Epson 4900 unless it will be in fairly continued use.

There is no way of knowing yet who has the edge on ink costs because the required information to make such comparisons is simply not available from an Epson P800 and I have heard of no intention on their part to make it available. For the Canon printer it is now available, but only for the ink laid down on paper, and not for all the ink used for internal maintenance, which may be considerable - however Canon will not provide tracking information for this aspect of ink usage, which would vary a lot from one user's printing habits to another's. So forget about this and don't try to make a purchase decision based on ink costs - even if we knew them, I am 99.9% certain it wouldn't sensibly sway a decision toward one brand or the other. It is one of those "nice to know" things; however, for service bureaux a more important consideration than for casual printers - but most of them use larger upscale printers where much of this information is provided.

In the same vein, forget about trying to value the chroma optimizer independently of the rest of the inkset. Consider it simply as part of the inkset whose major role, as Canon says, is to expand gamut and dynamic range of the prints. As I said in the review and several times since, there is no option to turn it off. It is always used. The option available is whether to let it spread across the whole print (recommended), or in Auto mode where it activates for the parts of the print with the denser ink laydown. It is costed along with the other inks in Canon's new print cost accounting utility which Pro-1000 owners can now install.

Good that you are now more relaxed about the decision you wish to make - and indeed, the factors you include in the "poison" do differentiate these machines; so you need to land on which set of features best responds to how you want to print.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

NigelC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #65 on: May 27, 2016, 01:01:25 pm »

Trying to choose between P800 and Prograf 1000 to replace my 3800. Having negotiated transit agreements with other family members for the larger bulk and weight of the Canon and taking as given a firmware update to permit up to 25.5" it should be a level playing field. The thing that inclines me towards the Canon is the fact that I tend to swap papers a lot depending on the effect I'm looking for and frankly I'm just not organised enough to batch matt and glossy papers. Also, I do seem to get a lot of head strikes with the 3800 and the vacuum feed on the Canon should be a plus here.

My reservation is the impression the Canon is more geared towards glossy and lustre papers and the fact that Epson have reformulated their matt black ink. My two favourite surfaces are "not very glossy" gloss, i.e. the glossy baryta papers that look like a non-glazed glossy darkroom fibre paper ( e.g. Harman) and slightly textured matt papers like Somerset Enhanced or Fotospeed Natural Soft textured. I wonder whether the Epson is a better bet for the textured matt. If there is hardly anything in it I'm leaning towards the Canon.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #66 on: May 27, 2016, 03:09:30 pm »


My reservation is the impression the Canon is more geared towards glossy and lustre papers and the fact that Epson have reformulated their matt black ink. My two favourite surfaces are "not very glossy" gloss, i.e. the glossy baryta papers that look like a non-glazed glossy darkroom fibre paper ( e.g. Harman) and slightly textured matt papers like Somerset Enhanced or Fotospeed Natural Soft textured. I wonder whether the Epson is a better bet for the textured matt. If there is hardly anything in it I'm leaning towards the Canon.

Canon reformulated the inkset for the Pro-1000 printer. The prints I made with it on matte papers were fine. As far as I can see, neither printer has any serious advantage over the other for making prints on matte papers. But regardless of the printer, matte papers cannot reproduce the dynamic range and depth of Black you can achieve from a Luster/Gloss paper.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

NigelC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #67 on: May 27, 2016, 04:08:26 pm »

Canon reformulated the inkset for the Pro-1000 printer. The prints I made with it on matte papers were fine. As far as I can see, neither printer has any serious advantage over the other for making prints on matte papers. But regardless of the printer, matte papers cannot reproduce the dynamic range and depth of Black you can achieve from a Luster/Gloss paper.

Of course not but they have a certain tactile quality, at least the ones with some texture, maybe not at their best behind glass but something that can be held and touched.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #68 on: May 27, 2016, 04:11:40 pm »

Sure, it's all a matter of personal taste. Some people prefer higher DMax to tactile effects, others the reverse. I just wanted to be sure you weren't expecting miracle DMax from either printer on matte papers.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

u2jimbo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
    • exploring photography
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #69 on: May 27, 2016, 04:44:58 pm »

Cornyj:  Thanks for your comments.  I don't think I have arrived at the point of actually recognizing bronzing or gloss differential.  I read discussions describing the effects, but in looking at my prints, I have been unable to identify these flaws (I'm guessing they exist, I just don't have the sophistication to pick them up yet).  The scratch resistance has clear value and I had not valued that benefit so I will give that further consideration.

My indecision to choose a printer is a surprise to me.  My first photographic inkjet printer was a Canon i9900 that I purchased back in 2004.  It was a flawless printer.  All my camera gear is Canon.  It is also flawless.  I bought the Epson R3000 when it first came out in order to move to pigment inks.  I had heard about the ink switching and blow outs and was wishing Canon had come out with a competitor so I could stay with them (I could have bought the 5100 but it seemed like more printer than I was ready for).  So, I took a chance and was rewarded: the Epson worked flawlessly for almost five years.  Then, coincidentally with the releases of the P800 and Pro-1000, it failed.  I thought it was an omen - I could get back to Canon.  Then, when I find out the second level attribute differences, I became frustrated.  The sticking point relates to panoramas.  I enjoy creating them.  So, I can get back to Canon and get the benefits of vacuum feed and no ink swapping, or stick with Epson and do in-house panos.

Given Canon has indicated unofficially that they can and will modify software to eliminate the imposed border restriction on length, do you believe they have the capability to allow even longer length panoramic printing?  (Without any foundation for adding a roll feed unit, it seems unlikely to me.)

In any case, it has helped my decision making by engaging in these chats with you and Mark.  I think I know which way I am going.  Thanks for listening and commenting.

Jim
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #70 on: May 27, 2016, 04:55:10 pm »


Given Canon has indicated unofficially that they can and will modify software to eliminate the imposed border restriction on length, do you believe they have the capability to allow even longer length panoramic printing?  (Without any foundation for adding a roll feed unit, it seems unlikely to me.)


Jim

Please read carefully enough: on the subject of the length limitation we published the update of May 22nd to my review of this printer indicating that the limitation is being extended to 25.5 inches (from 22). This will not give you the ability to print panos any longer than 25.5 inches.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

NigelC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #71 on: May 27, 2016, 07:16:53 pm »

I was reading another review of the Pro-1000 (Northlight Images) and that referred to inability to select Black Point Compensation which could be an issue printing from matt papers. I'm not clear whether this is only the case when printing from the Canon plug-in or it also applies to printing from Photoshop. This isn't specifically mentioned in the Lula review. Must admit I'm apprehensive about Canon software - I have a Canon all in one which has nearly been hurled out of the window several times.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #72 on: May 27, 2016, 08:05:58 pm »

For the Canon Pro-1000, if you have "Photoshop Manages Colors" active in the Photoshop Print dialog you can select Black Point Compensation with all the rendering intents except Absolute.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

NigelC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 583
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #73 on: May 28, 2016, 03:10:29 am »

For the Canon Pro-1000, if you have "Photoshop Manages Colors" active in the Photoshop Print dialog you can select Black Point Compensation with all the rendering intents except Absolute.

Right thanks for that.
Logged

keithcooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
    • Northlight Images
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #74 on: May 29, 2016, 07:38:00 am »

Of course not but they have a certain tactile quality, at least the ones with some texture, maybe not at their best behind glass but something that can be held and touched.
Ah, tactile quality - the paper salesman's friend... I've spoken to quite a lot of paper suppliers in the UK and they agree that you sell papers on qualities that matter not one jot to most people actually looking at the prints ;-)
Logged

keithcooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
    • Northlight Images
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #75 on: May 29, 2016, 07:42:13 am »

I was reading another review of the Pro-1000 (Northlight Images) and that referred to inability to select Black Point Compensation which could be an issue printing from matt papers. I'm not clear whether this is only the case when printing from the Canon plug-in or it also applies to printing from Photoshop. This isn't specifically mentioned in the Lula review. Must admit I'm apprehensive about Canon software - I have a Canon all in one which has nearly been hurled out of the window several times.

It works from within PS - see the two example prints one with and one without BPC.

I've edited the text in the review to make this point even clearer than it was before.

This is the difference it made on one matte paper

Logged

keithcooper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 417
    • Northlight Images
Page length latest - UK :-(
« Reply #76 on: May 29, 2016, 09:40:28 am »

After the slight problems getting a PRO-2000 into my house, I had another chat with people at Canon UK.

There is, I'm afraid, no information about the page length issue available. No hints, no suggestions - nothing.

I'm taking this as an official 'No comment' policy.

I'm pretty sure though that Canon in Japan are being told that it is causing appreciable 'sales resistance'...
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #77 on: May 29, 2016, 11:00:09 am »

It works from within PS - see the two example prints one with and one without BPC.

I've edited the text in the review to make this point even clearer than it was before.

This is the difference it made on one matte paper


I don't think matte paper is a particularly suitable media from which to appreciate the difference, because much of the BPC benefit is seen most obviously in the deep shadow range below the capability of matte papers to properly represent. I suspect this is the reason why the difference between the two versions in your image here is - while noticeable - rather subtle.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Page length latest - UK :-(
« Reply #78 on: May 29, 2016, 11:07:53 am »

After the slight problems getting a PRO-2000 into my house, I had another chat with people at Canon UK.

There is, I'm afraid, no information about the page length issue available. No hints, no suggestions - nothing.

I'm taking this as an official 'No comment' policy.

I'm pretty sure though that Canon in Japan are being told that it is causing appreciable 'sales resistance'...

If you are talking about the Pro-1000, I know first-hand that the senior technical staff in charge of this printer at Canon Inc (Japan) are thoroughly familiar with this issue, they know the importance of it, they are addressing it and we are reliably informed they will be adding several inches to the maximum sheet length. That is why we published the update notice of May 22nd in my review of the Pro-1000. 
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review
« Reply #79 on: May 29, 2016, 11:18:44 am »

Ah, tactile quality - the paper salesman's friend... I've spoken to quite a lot of paper suppliers in the UK and they agree that you sell papers on qualities that matter not one jot to most people actually looking at the prints ;-)

Keith, I think you and I are at the same place on this matter - the image quality, in particular rendition of Blacks/shadow detail is usually more important than how the paper feels; but the tactile quality, while the paper salesman's friend, is indeed more than that. Many people do think that holding and feeling the paper is an important aspect of the overall print appreciation experience. I don't: when I'm focused on a photograph the feel of the paper is the last thing on my mind; but that's just me and neither here nor there. Each to his/her own. And it has to be said, some of these matte papers combined with the new inksets have enhanced the range of photographs that really do fit very well or even better in a matte environment. So the old advice that the paper should be matched to the subject matter does make sense up to a point.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6   Go Up