Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000 Printer Review

[Mark D Segal]

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.

The main difference between Canon and Epson in respect of keeping the print head clean is how it's done. With Canon most of it happens under the hood as I explained in my review, whereas with Epson, you clean clogged nozzles as you see them appear on the nozzle check. To some extent the difference in "clogging performance", if I can put it that way, may be more apparent than real. Both printers will consume ink for this kind of maintenance. As these two models are very new it is not possible to say yet which will maintain the print head more economically or efficiently. Who knows how people in the market for a 17" printer will, on the whole, decide between these two models; but I'm not convinced price would necessarily be the major factor; for now, the Canon is costlier but gives you more start-up ink, while the Epson is cheaper and gives you less start-up ink. The "real cost" difference, right now, apples-to-apples may be trivial. I've highlighted some significant user-friendliness features the Canon has, but the Epson is much more flexible in respect of print size capability. Different factors will be more or less important to different users.

[Mark D Segal]

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

Yes, your comment on usage patterns being a major determinant of overall ink consumption is correct.

I have maintained spreadsheets on throughput and ink usage - and published a fair bit about it on this website; but the usefulness of those spreadsheets depends heavily on the availability of good data from the printer. Epson will not provide it for the P800, and we are still waiting for Canon's cost utility to be published, and when it is, to see whether it will report not only ink used on paper, but also ink used for maintenance. So we are in a bit of "black hole" in respect of ink costs for both models at this time.

[One Frame at a Time]

Thanks Mark!

[iCanvas]

Mark,

Between the P800 and Canon PRO-1000 which would give the best shadow detail and overall wow factor? Of course, this may be very subjective, but just wanted your opinion since you tested both printers.

Gar

[Mark D Segal]

Mark,

Between the P800 and Canon PRO-1000 which would give the best shadow detail and overall wow factor? Of course, this may be very subjective, but just wanted your opinion since you tested both printers.

Gar

Either one of them - it all depends on how well you prepare your files for print. Where I said right up front in the review that "The printer is as good as the printer", I meant it!  :-)

[Mark D Segal]

I would like to bring to the attention of readers interested in this printer, that there are two technical amendments to the article, and thank-you Canon Canada for bringing them to my attention. They are as follows:

(1) Borderless printing: it is possible to print borderless on matte fine art papers by canceling margin regulation in the printer driver.

(2) I am allowed to inform the community that Canon engineers are looking into the possibility of extending the print length and if they can do so, it would be included in a future driver update.

Both these changes are now reflected in the text of the article.

Mark

[Alan Goldhammer]

Thanks Mark and good for Canon to recognize that users may want to print longer length prints.

[moochdog]

Mark,

Really terrific work on a thorough review.  Are you planning to do similar on the Epson P7000/9000?  It would be great to see a side by side comparison of the best each of the majors has to offer in current printers.

[Mark D Segal]

Mark,

Really terrific work on a thorough review.  Are you planning to do similar on the Epson P7000/9000?  It would be great to see a side by side comparison of the best each of the majors has to offer in current printers.

Thanks very much. Glad you found it useful.

I have no room to house the large 24/44 inch beasts, so to review those printers I would need to work with them at suppliers' premises - not impossible, but not yet on the radar; however that could change.

[JMCP]

I would like to bring to the attention of readers interested in this printer, that there are two technical amendments to the article, and thank-you Canon Canada for bringing them to my attention. They are as follows:

(1) Borderless printing: it is possible to print borderless on matte fine art papers by canceling margin regulation in the printer driver.

(2) I am allowed to inform the community that Canon engineers are looking into the possibility of extending the print length and if they can do so, it would be included in a future driver update.

Both these changes are now reflected in the text of the article.

Mark

Thanks for the update Mark.

As someone who has been racking their tiny minds about whether to buy the canon or the epson p800, this may just have swayed my decision.

Cheers, John

[zalephoto]

Thanks for the review. It was much appreciated and quite prescient for me. The printer sounds like it could be the technology that I am looking for.

I was looking at the iPF8400 when the Pro-4000 was announced. Now I have a choice and a few quandaries in making a final decision. I wanted to assume that the ink set being reformulated in the Pro-4000 had more to do with improvements rather than the loss of green. Is that true? Based upon the Pro-1000 does the lack of Green ink make a substantive difference in the prints (green, blues, "bronzing", etc)?

And, I have heard that the "coating" must be applied overall. Yet, you stated on the 1000 review that you could adjust it so it was used only on the "inked area". Is that true for the large printers as well? Also, was the coating used on the 1000 in a substantially greater amount (i.e.: is it being used faster thus necessitating more frequent purchases)? On the larger printer I can only assume it would simply mean getting a larger supply of that ink.

I am interested in printing primarily on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta, as well as Epson Premium Semimatte Photo and Epson Exhibition Fiber. As well as canvas (Arista II Matte Canvas). 

Thank you and I will appreciate any and all input that you give.

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks for the review. It was much appreciated and quite prescient for me. The printer sounds like it could be the technology that I am looking for.

I was looking at the iPF8400 when the Pro-4000 was announced. Now I have a choice and a few quandaries in making a final decision. I wanted to assume that the ink set being reformulated in the Pro-4000 had more to do with improvements rather than the loss of green. Is that true? Based upon the Pro-1000 does the lack of Green ink make a substantive difference in the prints (green, blues, "bronzing", etc)?

And, I have heard that the "coating" must be applied overall. Yet, you stated on the 1000 review that you could adjust it so it was used only on the "inked area". Is that true for the large printers as well? Also, was the coating used on the 1000 in a substantially greater amount (i.e.: is it being used faster thus necessitating more frequent purchases)? On the larger printer I can only assume it would simply mean getting a larger supply of that ink.

I am interested in printing primarily on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Baryta, as well as Epson Premium Semimatte Photo and Epson Exhibition Fiber. As well as canvas (Arista II Matte Canvas). 

Thank you and I will appreciate any and all input that you give.

The new Canon larger scale models: I have had no exposure to them so I cannot answer any questions about them. That may change going forward, but no idea when.

Green Ink: The Epson 4900 has both green and orange inks which the Pro-1000 does not have. They permit overall wider gamut as I have shown. I have illustrated and discussed in the Pro-1000 review the very limited colour range in which this matters. In sum: precious little to be concerned about. I wouldn't base a printer choice on this.

The Canon Chroma Optimizer: There is a choice of using it overall (I would recommend) or only in more heavily inked areas. My limited experience using the Pro-1000 that Canon loaned me for the review suggests that it does run out faster than the other inks when used "overall" and therefore necessary to keep a decent supply on hand.

[zalephoto]

Thanks for your input!

[kuau]

Mark, your printer reviews are excellent well done.
I have an off topic question.
In the video with you and Kevin going over the printer would you happen to know what Kevin uses for hanging his photos in his studio. It's like a poster hanger system but do you know which one he uses?
Thanks

[Mark D Segal]

Mark, your printer reviews are excellent well done.
I have an off topic question.
In the video with you and Kevin going over the printer would you happen to know what Kevin uses for hanging his photos in his studio. It's like a poster hanger system but do you know which one he uses?
Thanks

Hi "kuau"; thanks, appreciated, and yes, Kevin's photo hanging system is very cool. He explained it to us when we were at his studio last December, but I didn't write it down so I have forgotten the details; perhaps best you send him a PM.

[howardm]

I'm pretty sure that in a previous forum post someone asked exactly the same question and Kevin indicated that he makes them himself but there are somewhat similar commercial versions.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I'm pretty sure that in a previous forum post someone asked exactly the same question and Kevin indicated that he makes them himself but there are somewhat similar commercial versions.

Yes, this was covered last year when Kevin first mentioned the hanger system in response to a question.  I believe at the time he indicated that he might find a way to manufacture them.  In the meantime here are links to two suppliers of similar systems (I forget who posted these links last year, and I'm too lazy to use the search feature to try to find it  ):

http://posterhanger.com/
http://www.wearewellmade.com/shop/stiicks

Alan

[howardm]

another is

http://www.shelftalkers.com/carttest2.aspx?productline=posterhangers

[janwalker47]

Thank you for this excellent in-depth technical review. I am curious about the chroma optimizer coating issue. I want to use whatever printer I get for printing on image transfer film. I understand that the transfers work better without the coating. Is the coating used as part of gloss profiles? From your review it sounds like you can't actually turn it off fully on a case by case basis. But ... I did see a demo piece at a Canon booth where they had printed one half of a picture with and the other half without the coating. So how did that happen I wonder - engineering magic or under user control?

I anticipate making a custom profile for the transfer film. Can you explain how / whether the use of the optimizer coating is baked into a paper profile?

Many thanks.

[Mark D Segal]

Thank you for this excellent in-depth technical review. I am curious about the chroma optimizer coating issue. I want to use whatever printer I get for printing on image transfer film. I understand that the transfers work better without the coating. Is the coating used as part of gloss profiles? From your review it sounds like you can't actually turn it off fully on a case by case basis. But ... I did see a demo piece at a Canon booth where they had printed one half of a picture with and the other half without the coating. So how did that happen I wonder - engineering magic or under user control?

I anticipate making a custom profile for the transfer film. Can you explain how / whether the use of the optimizer coating is baked into a paper profile?

Many thanks.

All I know about this is that the optimizer is automatically applied either in part or in full (your choice) for papers using PK ink. It is disabled automatically for papers using MK ink. I do not know whether it operates with transfer film. There is nothing in the manual answering this point. I recommend you call Canon tech support and ask them.