PRO-2000 on its way - questions?

[keithcooper]

Just while I'm writing up a longish PRO-1000 review (should be done in a few days), Canon UK have called and told me they are looking to send me the (even bigger) PRO-2000 in a couple of weeks  (this will need to be discussed with house management at an opportune moment ;-) )

It will be a pre-production unit, but pretty much what should ship (maybe not for a couple of months here in the UK).  If anyone has any specific questions, please let me know, since I may only have it here for a couple of weeks at the most?

[howardm]

Please verify that the internal hard disk is standard now instead of a different printer/part-number.

Ease of cut sheet loading.

Ask them why they cheaped out on the PRO-4000 ink

Will it fit through a 36" American door without gymnastics?

Controllability of gloss opt. application

Obviously a comparison of usability and quality between old x[34]00 series and new (you have the 8300, right?)

[kevinmcdnyc]

Can you please get some more information about the ink longevity numbers?  They seem to be some confusion as to whether those numbers are worse than the prior inkset.  Thanks

[keithcooper]

- Please verify that the internal hard disk is standard now instead of a different printer/part-number.

Seems to be, but I'll be sure to check

- Ease of cut sheet loading.

Compared to? I have an 8300 and don't find any trouble with sheets, nor with the 6100/6300/6450 when I looked at them ;-)

- Ask them why they cheaped out on the PRO-4000 ink

Sorry ... "cheaped out" ??

- Will it fit through a 36" American door without gymnastics?

Certainly hope so, since I'm in the UK, where in my 1880's home doors are 30" wide, and it's got to got through to my test lab (or kitchen as some have spotted)

- Controllability of gloss opt. application

I'm feeling it's going to be pretty much the same as the PRO-1000, but yes, I'll definitely have a look at this

- Obviously a comparison of usability and quality between old x[34]00 series and new (you have the 8300, right?)

Yes, and the PRO-1000 that I had here for a few weeks...

[howardm]

I had heard that the x[34]00 series was fairly finicky w/ cut sheet and was challenging to get it loaded w/o tons of load errors.

re: ink, it was an aside since they are shipping the new -4000 w/ only 160mL carts instead of 330's so that's a major $$ hit but the 2000 actually picks up a bunch from 90 -> 130

[Czornyj]

I had heard that the x[34]00 series was fairly finicky w/ cut sheet and was challenging to get it loaded w/o tons of load errors.

re: ink, it was an aside since they are shipping the new -4000 w/ only 160mL carts instead of 330's so that's a major $$ hit but the 2000 actually picks up a bunch from 90 -> 130

The iPF6xxx was PITA in this regard IMO. The iPF8xxx works flawlessly.

[keithcooper]

- I had heard that the x[34]00 series was fairly finicky w/ cut sheet and was challenging to get it loaded w/o tons of load errors.

I've heard this about the 6xxx printers before, but looking again at my own testing, I just never had any issues with sheet feeding?  I'll be sure to give it a thorough testing though

- re: ink, it was an aside since they are shipping the new -4000 w/ only 160mL carts instead of 330's so that's a major $$ hit but the 2000 actually picks up a bunch from 90 -> 130

I see - that is a bit mean. The 330ml R/G/B inks of my 8300 lasted a long time - so long that I only replaced them with 330's when they ran out.

[enduser]

On our 6100 we could load rigid media of significant length by pulling it out from the wall and using the thick media load port.  We used it to print on wood veneer which we then put on thicker timbers.

Do the new Canons have that thick media load possibility?  Thanks.

[iCanvas]

Would like to know the speed of the prints and quality at different DPI settings. I am sure it will be similar to the PRO 1000 but a comparison would be great.

Thanks,

Gar

[samueljohnchia]

Hi Keith, do you mind looking to see if the paper path design is the same as that of the iPF83/400 printers?

The pinch rollers that clamp down the paper onto the feed drive shaft with the grippy friction material were exerting too much pressure (on four printers I personally tested, iPF8400 (2), iPF8100 (1) and an iPF8300S) and causing ripples to be visible in very soft papers like Canson Rag Photographique (Rag PQ) and Platine as the paper gets crushed or "steamrollered" as they pass under the rollers. Feeding the paper back and forth multiple times exacerbates the problem to a very severe degree. I sometimes have to do such a thing as I let the printer unroll the first two feet or so of paper to check for surface defects before printing (too unwieldy and dangerous to do by hand without damaging the ridiculously fragile paper surface). I wonder if Canon made any design changes to these parts. Please see the image attachments for illustrations of the parts in question.

I'm also wondering what the gamut volumes are like now for i1Profiler profiles of the new inkset. I'm also very interested in the dmax it is now capable of on Canson Rag PQ or the Epson Hot Press papers. The Epson Ultrachrome HDX inkset has move forward in that regard, able to hit L*14 easily on Rag PQ. I would suppose the overall gamut volume could be down a bit since it's lacking that green ink, but it could be more in other regions because of the higher density pigment loads and actually give us more useful gamut, since it's exceedingly rare to find such intense greens in nature that will require the old green ink. I'm hoping that it will cover more of the light yellows, oranges and yellow-greens, which the Ultrachrome HDX inkset does, a very important region of color for landscape photographers like myself.

We can only hope the print permanence didn't take a hit for any improvements in the inkset!

While I'm pretty sure that the Chroma Optimizer is only available for glossy media printing, I do wonder if there's a way to cheat the driver to use it for matte media. Or maybe just use a glossy setting to print on a matte paper, so see the effect of the CO on matte. I moved from preferring semi-gloss Baryta papers to matte papers from Canson, specifically Rag PQ, primarily because the real world visible gamut and contrast range of glossy is totally obscured by glare and reflections on the print surface, making matte prints invariably more brilliant in almost all lighting conditions. My hope was that the CO could be a way to saturate and somewhat seal the hydrophyllic coatings of these aqueous inkjet papers so we can avoid spraying them. Breathing the fumes over time may cause encephalopathy! Not to mention the near-vicinity air pollution, more global warming contributing aerosols, runoff into the ground and having to throw away cans, plus the huge cost and effort. I can't imagine having to spray 40 x 60 inch prints with cans of Printshield! It would be so great if the printer could coat the prints for us.

[keithcooper]

- Hi Keith, do you mind looking to see if the paper path design is the same as that of the iPF83/400 printers?

It's a 24" P2000 they are sending, so 6xxo series.

I will look for roller issues, but in general a box or roll of paper that marks easily stays in my sample collection until I have one of my regular clearouts and give stuff away to local clubs ;-)

- I'm also wondering what the gamut volumes are like now for i1Profiler profiles of the new inkset.

I'll make any profiles I produce available (incl. measurement data) for anyone who wants to look. It's not a figure I ever check myself.

- We can only hope the print permanence didn't take a hit for any improvements in the inkset!

I asked and was only referred to Canon published info, when I had the PRO-1000 here

- While I'm pretty sure that the Chroma Optimizer is only available for glossy media printing, I do wonder if there's a way to cheat the driver to use it for matte media.

Making a custom media type -may- be one route, but I suspect no CO for MBK

- Or maybe just use a glossy setting to print on a matte paper, so see the effect of the CO on matte. I moved from preferring semi-gloss Baryta papers to matte papers from Canson, specifically Rag PQ, primarily because the real world visible gamut and contrast range of glossy is totally obscured by glare and reflections on the print surface, making matte prints invariably more brilliant in almost all lighting conditions.

Not something I find - I have relatively few (colour) landscape images that I prefer on a matte paper. My matte papers are invariably used for B&W

- My hope was that the CO could be a way to saturate and somewhat seal the hydrophyllic coatings of these aqueous inkjet papers so we can avoid spraying them.

It doesn't - my PRO-1000 prints smell just like my iPF8300 ones. I don't ever spray my 8300 prints.

[MHMG]

We can only hope the print permanence didn't take a hit for any improvements in the inkset!

We can hope.... or we can find out for ourselves

cheers,
mark
http://www.aardenburg-imagng.com

[I.T. Supplies]

Ink longevity is still being verified by Wilhelm Research, but it's still very close to the x400 series; could be better.  The inks are completely revamped/updated to match the updated body, head and functionality.  They started fresh on the Pro series with everything down to the processing core (comes with 3 instead of 1 in the x300/x400).

All models will carry a 320GB Hard Drive.  Only the ipf6400 didn't have it and the 6450 did.
Not sure on sheet loading (reps didn't mention that function at the training), but we are receiving our Pro-4000 this next week and we can test everything that way.
Canon didn't necessarily cheap out on the inks.  Since they added the 190ml to the options, it is a full set still of the smallest ink (just like the 8400 was the 330ml).  They are still providing more ink than Epson's starter set and you will actually use ALL of the ink (without wasting money).
On the S version (8 colors), they provide 190ml for the PBK, PC, PM and G while 330ml for the MBK, C, M, Y as they use ALL 12 channels in this model, which the main colors will use 2 channels instead of one and that's the reason for the larger upfront cartridges.  You're still getting more ink than an Epson LFP.

We were able to fit an 8400 through standard size doors at our office and the Pro series is just slightly smaller, but a little heavier.

We were told there is a selection in the settings to turn off the Chroma Opt since it's defaulted to print automatically on all media with sheen (make an even layer of ink across the print).

Hopefully between us and Keith, we will both have much to write about
Canon Training was very awesome on the features. 

Atlex.com

[keithcooper]

...
They are still providing more ink than Epson's starter set and you will actually use ALL of the ink (without wasting money).
...

That is perhaps just a little disingenuous in that there will always be that much ink in the machine right up to the day it goes for scrap. So whilst technically, all the ink that is loaded from the initial carts does get used, the cost of the 'fill ink' is just deferred until EOL.

I don't have a problem with this, but prefer to call it as it is, not as a marketing department might phrase it ;-)

Thanks though for the extra info on the 4000.

Testing the PRO-1000 has definitely made me even more interested in trying that PRO-2000

[GrahamBy]

the cost of the 'fill ink' is just deferred until EOL.

Actually no, you pay it up front, as every subsequent ink purchase comes that bit earlier than if the sub-tanks hadn't needed to be filled.
So you pay in today's currency units, not those at EOL. Not that it makes much difference with todays inflation rate, but still...

[keithcooper]

Actually no, you pay it up front, as every subsequent ink purchase comes that bit earlier than if the sub-tanks hadn't needed to be filled.
So you pay in today's currency units, not those at EOL. Not that it makes much difference with todays inflation rate, but still...

Yes, I see :-)  You still end up paying fr it somewhere...

[samueljohnchia]

It's a 24" P2000 they are sending, so 6xxo series.

I will look for roller issues, but in general a box or roll of paper that marks easily stays in my sample collection until I have one of my regular clearouts and give stuff away to local clubs ;-)

Not something I find - I have relatively few (colour) landscape images that I prefer on a matte paper. My matte papers are invariably used for B&W

- My hope was that the CO could be a way to saturate and somewhat seal the hydrophyllic coatings of these aqueous inkjet papers so we can avoid spraying them.

It doesn't - my PRO-1000 prints smell just like my iPF8300 ones. I don't ever spray my 8300 prints.

Thanks! Looking forward to it. Based on product images of the exterior of the new Pro-2000, it looks to share the same paper feed and path design as the Pro-4000, which makes sense from a manufacturing point of view. If they are the same, the observations should carry on to the Pro-4000.

I know what you mean about not preferring matte paper. I was like that until only very recently. It's a different taste. I've not seen any glossy papers that can remain effectively glare-free except when displayed in a room where the ground, walls and ceiling are painted very dark, and there is only one spotlight illuminating the print, at 45 degrees.

I don't spray my prints either. It's too much of a pain in so many ways. The smell of the prints has nothing to do if the ink receptive coating is sealed off or not...

[samueljohnchia]

We can hope.... or we can find out for ourselves

Yes to the second part!!

[MHMG]

Ink longevity is still being verified by Wilhelm Research, but it's still very close to the x400 series; could be better.  The inks are completely revamped/updated to match the updated body, head and functionality.  They started fresh on the Pro series with everything down to the processing core (comes with 3 instead of 1 in the x300/x400).

Atlex.com

Do you have first hand knowledge that WIR is testing the new LUCIA Pro ink set?  I keep hearing second hand trade show rumors, but I have been unable to find any published statements from either WIR or from Canon that this testing is ongoing. If true, it seems a little strange that Canon wouldn't be more forthcoming about it given that WIR and Epson issued a joint press release with longevity forecasts for the new Epson HD and HDX inks over a year ago.

What I have seen published in the PRO-2000 specs is Canon internal test results giving 45 and 60 year "Display life" estimates for two Canon RC photo media. Those figures suggest the new inks are worse than the older LUCIA EX set, and dramatically worse than the Epson/WIR 200+ year forecast for the HD and HDX inks on select Epson media if all of this information is taken at face value. 

All that said, still no completed test reports available on the WIR website for any of these new ink sets as far as I can see.  However, I will be publishing a year long study of the Epson HD inks versus the older K3 ink on the Aardenburg website by the end of this week. The results are impressive.  I'd like to rinse and repeat with a head-to-head comparison of the LUCIA Pro versus HD ink sets, but I have not yet been able to purchase a new Canon printer that uses the LUCIA Pro ink set.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[kevinmcdnyc]

What I have seen published in the PRO-2000 specs is Canon internal test results giving 45 and 60 year "Display life" estimates for two Canon RC photo media. Those figures suggest the new inks are worse than the older LUCIA EX set, and dramatically worse than the Epson/WIR 200+ year forecast for the HD and HDX inks on select Epson media if all of this information is taken at face value. 

This is perhaps the question that I'm most curious to clear up. Living in NYC, the physical size of the new PRO-2000 is great for a 24 inch printer.  But this print longevity question lingers.