Topic: ipf5000 (Read 435971 times)

jclacherty · « **Reply #60 on:** June 21, 2006, 07:19:22 pm »

Good review, thanks Michael. Pending seeing some actual prints I think I'll get one.

Now I wonder if this wonderful 16 bit plugin will be available for Lightroom (if it's ever released for Windows).

The plugin shows input resolution of 300dpi or 600dpi. So if I'm going to print an A2 sized print from my 30D do I need to res up the image to use the plugin? If I do, should I be ressing up to 300dpi or 600 dpi?

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #61 on:** June 21, 2006, 07:39:11 pm »

Quote

Michael,

Nice review. However, as far as ink costs go this sounds way too good to be true. For Epson printers, ink coverage is around 2 ml/square foot from various estimates I have seen. Using your figures, the Canon uses 0.17 ml/square foot (1560 ml for 9000 square feet per the article). Either this is the most frugal printer around, or the coverage is only 10% of typical photographic prints--or the calculations are off by a factor of 10. If it really is this low, it would beat the heck out of the Epsons for cost of ink.

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

John, my data set for 8 months usage of the 4800 indicates about 1.75 ml/sq.ft. ink coverage on Epson Enhanced Matte, excluding allowance for routine cleaning and declogging.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #62 on:** June 21, 2006, 07:53:27 pm »

Quote

Mark is the obvious person to give a tight cost analysis. So far this aspect appears promising. ...........

.......the more serious Matte Black issue has not improved. This may be an area in which Epson can hit back..................

The slight deficiency in reds, which Epson greatly improved with the K3 inkset , may well be addressed with custom profiles. This too, remains to be seen............

Cheers,
Brian,
www.pharoseditions.com.au
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68799\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Brian, I'm hoping to take delivery within several weeks; I do hope the software allows me to do the right kind of cost calculations; then it will require a period of usage long enough to see the machine settle into a stable and predictable pattern before producing an analysis. Not knowing this animal yet, hard to say how long it will take, but several months would not surprise me. All that said, my main interest in purchasing this machine is the unprecedented flexibility and superb print quality it offers.

One wonders about the Matte Black DMax issue. It seems for the time being that this kind of paper is just too challenging to get the kind of DR achieved with certain non-matte media. Not clear when or with what Epson will hit back - but with the march of tech progress being what it is, who knows........perhaps........

As for the reds, while gamut plots are one thing, seeing the reds in the prints is another thing. The samples I've seen indicate very satisfactory reds, regardless of what the gamut plots may indicate.

John Hollenberg · « **Reply #63 on:** June 21, 2006, 08:06:25 pm »

Quote

That works out to roughly 8 ml/m^2 or about 0.74 ml/ft^2.

That is more the same order of magnitude as my estimate, and 4-5 times as much ink as the article suggested. I wonder if the Canon really uses less ink than the Epson to make the same print?

--John

John Hollenberg · « **Reply #64 on:** June 21, 2006, 08:44:31 pm »

Quote

John, my data set for 8 months usage of the 4800 indicates about 1.75 ml/sq.ft. ink coverage on Epson Enhanced Matte, excluding allowance for routine cleaning and declogging.

This fits with the other estimates I have seen. I wonder if Michael has any stats on ink use. Does the IPF5000 tell you the amount of ink used for a job?

--John

jclacherty · « **Reply #65 on:** June 21, 2006, 09:09:08 pm »

Quote

This fits with the other estimates I have seen. I wonder if Michael has any stats on ink use. Does the IPF5000 tell you the amount of ink used for a job?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you'll find that Michael's estimates are based on average cost per square foot people are seeing with previous Canon's (correct me if I'm wrong Michael), not on the actual ink usage. That'll be where the discrepancy is. I don't think it was meant to be a conclusive cost estimate.

John Hollenberg · « **Reply #66 on:** June 21, 2006, 09:15:31 pm »

Quote

I think you'll find that Michael's estimates are based on average cost per square foot people are seeing with previous Canon's (correct me if I'm wrong Michael), not on the actual ink usage. That'll be where the discrepancy is. I don't think it was meant to be a conclusive cost estimate.

I am sure that is what he meant. However, I am guessing that it is so far off as to be extremely misleading. If that is the case, seems that it would be prudent to remove this part from the article. Of course, I hope I am wrong

--John

rmarien · « **Reply #67 on:** June 21, 2006, 10:18:16 pm »

Michael

A great review.
You mentioned that the carts would be good for 7200 prints. At a hundred prints a month, this would give 6 years of prints. I was under the impression that the ink once opened was only good for 6 months. Any coments?

wolfy · « **Reply #68 on:** June 21, 2006, 10:31:20 pm »

Non-pro costs --

Michael's report of $900.00+ fill-up for replacement cartridges brings some thoughts:

If a serious amateur, interested in a top quality printer for 16 X 20's, but having no expectation of high useage rates, bites the money bullet and fills the printer, ...his costs will surely depend upon the shelf(or in-printer) -life of the inks. Will evaporation, settling, etc., degrade the ink over time, and find the user with an expensive collection of colorful gook, .....and quite likely a gummed-up machine?

Comments? (Other than "Have custom prints made by a pro." ;-)

Thanks.

oscar falero · « **Reply #69 on:** June 21, 2006, 11:56:37 pm »

Hello Michael,

What settings did you use to print on Epsons Enhanced Matte? Did you create a paper profile for proofing on CS?

Thanks
Oscar

michael · « **Reply #70 on:** June 22, 2006, 12:31:54 am »

I have no firm information on long term ink life. I have carts for my 4800 that have been in the machine for over a year that work fine.

I would imagine that anyone who didn't go through each cartridge over a couple of year period isn't likely to fid this printer meets their needs.

Brian Gilkes · « **Reply #71 on:** June 22, 2006, 07:38:11 am »

I doubt if ink life in the sealed cartridge will be a problem at all. The only likely problem could be settling , which occurs with a lot of pigmented inks. Epson seems to counter this by machine vibration, especially in the larger models on stands. They also recommend a gentle to and fro shaking before inserting a new cartridge. If a machine has been left standing for an extended period without use, you can remove inks , shake them and replace. You can probably do the same on the Canon.
Cheers,
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au

dmcginlay · « **Reply #72 on:** June 22, 2006, 11:32:19 am »

5000 with 16 bit plug-in vs. 4800 with RIP - TCO

Michael,

Good report!

I inferred from your report that the prints with a Canon 5000 with the 16-bit plug-in is similiar in quality to the Epson 4800 with the ImagePrint RIP (equal file, equal paper, etc.).

If you factor that into the total cost of ownership, the pendulum swings significantly towards Canon.

Alright Epson, Game On! Isn't competion great?

Don

P.S.
I was at a trade show last night and compared the same file printed on an Epson 4800 and a Canon 5000 on Hahnemuhle Matte - both were fantastic.

Andrew Larkin · « **Reply #73 on:** June 22, 2006, 12:05:34 pm »

At a recent tradeshow in Sydney where Canon launched the ipf5000, a colleague and I discussed the subject of ink consumption with one of the Canon technical people on the stand.

The argument was that the 5000 did use noticably less ink than the Epson by virtue of not needing to "mix" inks as much - thanks to the additional red, blue, and green inks.

What was obvious from the show was that there was a gap in the line of announced printers using the new Lucia inks - no 24" or 36" models.

I have noticed that Canon (Australia) show an ipf500 (6 cartridge) and ipf5000 (12 cartridge) model, but also an ipf600 (6 cartridge) A1 model which is NOT a floor-standing model and has cassette feeding. This leads one to the conclusion that an ipf6000 model might be a possible future...

As I have been persisting with the Epson 4000, the next printer on my wish list is a 24". The move to 24" in the Epson has been discounted because I have room only for one printer and I enjoy the ability to feed sheets too much. The ink-juggle for matt/gloss is another killer issue.

Now a 24" desktop printer with 12 cartridges and cassette feed is something I will definitely consider!

Andrew

jmccart · « **Reply #74 on:** June 22, 2006, 01:00:06 pm »

The prospect of a printer with great results that doesn't required a $1000 RIP software that is not user friendly is beyond the word happy. While Epson and Colorbyte have made a great package, it has been with a substatial cost in time and money. Michael, thank you for an excellent review. I can always count on you to give a true opinion of the products you evaluate.
Got to run place my order!
As a side note Canon does not make the manual for the IPF5000 available on their website. Hopefully, it is being converted to a pdf with index.

andythom68 · « **Reply #75 on:** June 23, 2006, 04:03:56 am »

Quote

At a recent tradeshow in Sydney where Canon launched the ipf5000, a colleague and I discussed the subject of ink consumption with one of the Canon technical people on the stand.

The argument was that the 5000 did use noticably less ink than the Epson by virtue of not needing to "mix" inks as much - thanks to the additional red, blue, and green inks.

What was obvious from the show was that there was a gap in the line of announced printers using the new Lucia inks - no 24" or 36" models.

I have noticed that Canon (Australia) show an ipf500 (6 cartridge) and ipf5000 (12 cartridge) model, but also an ipf600 (6 cartridge) A1 model which is NOT a floor-standing model and has cassette feeding. This leads one to the conclusion that an ipf6000 model might be a possible future...

As I have been persisting with the Epson 4000, the next printer on my wish list is a 24". The move to 24" in the Epson has been discounted because I have room only for one printer and I enjoy the ability to feed sheets too much. The ink-juggle for matt/gloss is another killer issue.

Now a 24" desktop printer with 12 cartridges and cassette feed is something I will definitely consider!

Andrew
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The ipf5000 certainly looks like a great printer but I am a little disapointed Canon have not introduced a 24" / 36" (or even a 44") version with the Lucia ink to give Epson more compitition. Is there anybody out there with information on when wider format (specifically 24") Canon "iPFx000" with Lucia ink will be available?

Does anyone know if the 16-bit driver works in Lightroom, or will Canon have to release a seperate driver?

Before this printer came along I was looking at the Epson 7800 with ImagePrint now with the introduction of the ipf5000 I am going to hold off until either Canon release a 24" version or Epson get their act together and come up with a printer that does not need to swap cartridges.

Canon has a great opertunity here to steal the technological lead from Epson if they can get their firmware/driver/manual niggles sorted-out and release wider format printers before Epson can update their current range.

aussiephil · « **Reply #76 on:** June 23, 2006, 07:11:52 am »

Interesting tidbit i picked up from the "Material safety Data Sheets" for the Canon ipf5000 ink tanks, that have since disappeared from the Australian site

The Sheets clearly had heading of "For iPF5000-iPF6500"

Does this make the iPF6500 the yet to be announced 24" (36") big brother for the 5000.

Found it Cached by Google

Product Name: Canon Ink Tank PFI-101Y
iPF5000_iPF6500
Product Code: 0886B
Company Name: Canon Inc.

Cheers
Phil

Brian Gilkes · « **Reply #77 on:** June 23, 2006, 09:07:49 am »

Quote

Interesting tidbit i picked up from the "Material safety Data Sheets" for the Canon ipf5000 ink tanks, that have since disappeared from the Australian site

The Sheets clearly had heading of "For iPF5000-iPF6500"

Does this make the iPF6500 the yet to be announced 24" (36") big brother for the 5000.

Found it Cached by Google

Product Name: Canon Ink Tank PFI-101Y
iPF5000_iPF6500
Product Code: 0886B
Company Name: Canon Inc.
Cheers
Phil
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Phil,
Quite likely.
As mentioned on this and other sites the 60" 9000 has been announced in Europe.
Rumours of the intermediate models have been quite solid for some time in Japan and elsewhere.
IMHO at the very latest we will see them at Photokina.
Canon will be attempting to sort out bugs with the 5000. Hopefully this will include hiring a new person to write the manuals. With a 1DS111 on the way, Canon will be creaming this year.
Epson (and Nikon)will have to come back with something in 2007. HP could be cooking, but they have shown no indication or perhaps interest in, the fine art market.
Don't buy a big x800 yet....
Cheers,
Brian,
www.pharoseditions.com.au

jmccart · « **Reply #78 on:** June 23, 2006, 02:47:25 pm »

While waiting for my IPF5000 to arrive, I was looking at the ink capacity vs my EPSON 4800.
The IPF5000 has 12 at 130ml cartridges. The 4800 has 7 at 220ml.
1560 ml for the IPF5000 and 1540 ml for the 4800. With less mixing of ink I'm hopeful the IPF5000 will be somewhat lower in ink consumption.

tbonanno · « **Reply #79 on:** June 23, 2006, 02:48:21 pm »

The datasheet reference to a 6500 does not surprise me. I believe that a 24" version is definitely coming. I'm just not sure I've got the patience to wait for it... I've been pulling my hair out with three different Epson 4000's. Sour on Epson with the non-swapable ink setup on the 7800, so haven't bought one. Now it appears that what I really want is a 24" version of this Canon!

Thank you Michael for the very helpful and useful review !

Author Topic: ipf5000 (Read 435971 times)