Specific criticisms of the BLI report (the items in quotes are from the report):
"...the Epson model's ink consumption is that some ink will be used in the process of changing from matte black to photo black inks (or vice versa), as they share the same printhead."
-the matte black inks share the same printhead on both printers - and generally it didn't seem like the reviewers really understood printers.
"Both models produced excellent colour gamuts on photo paper, with the Canon delivering a slightly smaller (by 8.9%) gamut than that of the Epson model."
-I would say that a gamut that is 8.9 percent smaller is pretty significant.
"quality set to Highest (1200 dpi) on the Canon model, and the Epson model set to Max Quality Level 5 (2880 x 1440 dpi)"
-I don't know Canon printers - but does this mean that the Canon was printing at 1200 x 1200, and why wasn't it compared to Epson's 1440 x 1440 setting? Seems like more of a match to me, and ink consumption could be considerably different at a different resolution.
"the Canon PRO-2000 has the overall edge with its more vibrant colours, sharper detailing and crisper text and fine lines."
-when they say the Canon produced more vibrant colors, why didn't they mention how the colors matched the original that was being printed. More vibrant, if it doesn't match the original is not a good thing. And, why didn't the report show the test images that were used?
"...measured using EFI Colour Verifier software, the Epson device delivered a much lower mean Delta E drift of 0.8 than the Canon unit's mean Delta E, which was 6.0."
-They didn't mention that they were printing with the EFI RIP, but as far as I know, in order to use EFI's Color Verifier, printing needs to be done with the RIP. And, a Delta E of 6.0 is absolutely terrible, while 0.8 is incredibly consistent and stable.
"The Canon model exhibited very good, natural-looking skin tones in photographic images, while the Epson unit produced skin tones that were flat and pale in comparison."
-But, did the Canon prints match the originals?
"Yet, Canon users can use the PPR-2000's standard calibration features will allow users to calibrate the printer not only with the manufacturer's own-brand or genuine paper, but other media brands as well, while administrators can control colour and monitor the calibration status across the PRO-1000/2000/4000 series via Canon's free Device Management Console utility to ensure colour consistency."
From Northlight Images review on Canon's standard calibration: "This ensures that your printer is working at a known standard of performance. It is NOT the same as ICC paper profiling and the printer cannot do this." The Northlight Images review is
here.
The review doesn't even mention the Chroma Optimizer - maybe it was turned off for the ink usage tests, and at 290.00 per 700ml cartridge, I would say that is a significant omission. Also, Epson 700ml ink is 21 percent less expensive than the Canon ink. This cost difference wasn't considered, and if Chroma Optimizer usage was ignored, the Canon's cost is probably on par with the Epson or even more expensive.
It really seems like the BLI review was done to please their customer (Canon) and wasn't at all objective. I just wouldn't trust it. But, after reading Northlight Images review, it does seem to be a decent printer, but absolutely not the best printer that was ever made.
Also, I'm just trying to make this discussion a little more factual. Please don't tear me apart!
thank you.
Tony