I've now printed about 100 feet (24" width) of various baryta papers on the new Pro-2000, and can report a bit on how the machine is to use, and how the prints turn out. It just ran out of ink in the first couple of cartridges, with three more showing "low" (which can last quite a while), and seven not warning at all yet.
Overall, I'm very satisfied with the machine. It is generally an easy printer to use (I've used and fought with wide-format inkjets for 15 years now, and this is one of the easy ones). Image quality is terrific, with a wide gamut (is it quite as wide as the 11-ink Epsons? I don't know, but it's close, and it's hard to run this thing out of gamut). It's definitely more in the range of the 11-ink Epsons than the 9-ink models in percieved gamut (this is by eye, not measured). My experience with 11-ink Epsons is with the 7900, having only seen prints from a P7000 at shows. Similarly, my experience with 9-ink Epsons is with the 3880, not the newest inkset. Several reviewers have commented that the Canon Pro 1000/2000/4000 have exceptionally deep blacks, and I concur - there is a solidity in the deepest shadows that I haven't seen in any other inkjet print. I don't know whether that is the black ink, the chroma optimizer, or a combination of the two.
There are two other notable features of a Pro-2000 image - one is "Canon blues". At least since the iPF-6100, Canons have had something special in deep blue skies and blue water (Epsons are lovely in saturated greens). The Pro-2000 is no exception to the beautiful blues of Canon printers - it's the best yet.
The second is the chroma optimizer. Use it on "overall" coverage mode, and there is a smoothness to image gloss that simply isn't there on any other inkjet I've worked with. Gloss differential and bronzing are simply gone on baryta and Platine type papers! Printers have gotten better at this over the years (the original Epson 2000P had a horrible green shift due to metamerism, as first documented here, and really only printed on matte papers, while each succeeding generation got better) - but it's always been visible in some conditions, although the last couple generations of printers have been very good. If you set the chroma optimizer to "overall" on the Pro-2000, it's gone!
I haven't printed on the wide-format HPs that also use a clearcoat, so HP may have solved this years ago, but this is the first time on a wide-format printer from one of the "big two". Of course, this comes at a cost - the chroma optimizer is a fast-running ink in "overall" mode. It doesn't run out any faster than Photo Black or Gray, but it's in the same league as those inks. It's one more ink that runs out relatively quickly - for most people on this board, that's not a real issue (paper costs more than ink, and if you're selling prints for a price where the cost of the ink is a substantial part of the cost of the print, you're not charging enough).
When I look at my consumable cost to make a framed print, the two most expensive parts (besides my time) are the window mat (I don't cut my own) and the acrylic I use as frame "glass". Next comes the paper and the wood in the frame, and the least expensive parts are the ink and the backing board. If you're selling in the art market, ink just disappears as part of the cost (and the chroma optimizer is NOT so heavily used as to change that).
If you're printing for others, the chroma optimizer isn't a cost issue unless you're in the Walmart/Costco end of the market. If you are, why use a 12-ink printer? Most cheap print shops want files in sRGB, and any decent 8-ink printer can exceed sRGB easily (and will be much faster than a 12-ink art printer). The real competition in the low end of the print-for-pay market is from online shops that have the volume to use either some form of automated photo-paper printer (Lambda and LightJet are the high end, with minilab equipment at the low end) or something like an HP Indigo (only 4 to 7 inks, but still comfortably exceeds sRGB). The Indigo (which they call a digital press, even though it's really a cross between an inkjet and a laser printer with some elements of an offset press) is incredibly fast and efficient, and uses huge ink cans to print "photo-quality" color at something like 90 pages per minute. That monster is fully capable of turning out decent prints for the low-end market for a few cents apiece, and it's probably what makes the big online labs so hard to compete with... The only way I'd personally print for others is selling expertise, not ink. Most of us who bother to read the printing forum can make a print MUCH better than anything a minilab or an Indigo will turn out automatically - we'll get killed if we try to compete with those guys on price, but we can offer quality they can't touch to a lower-volume market that cares about quality.
Overall, I prefer the print quality of the Pro-2000 to any other wide-format inkjet I've used - if Epson has a slight gamut advantage, it's compensated for by Canon's chroma optimizer and blacks. It's an easy printer to use, with an automatic paper feed that really works - it's an improved version of the bottom roll feed from the iPF 8x00 series, but it's much improved because it grabs the paper almost right away - no messing around trying to find a feed slot under the printer. Both manufacturers' current-generation roll feeders are remarkably (I'd say equally) easy, compared to anything that came before. Canon has an advantage with the optional second roll holder, while Epson has an advantage with drop-in sheet feeding - the Canon sheet feeder is easy, but it does involve opening the front cover. Canon's print catcher design is far superior.
Note that the Canon has no straight paper path - the paper prints while horizontal, reaching the platen from behind after making a turn and is ejected forward, and the only place to put a straight path would involve feeding from the rear of the (notably deep) printer. They haven't bothered, and it would be a rare installation where a rear feed slot would be accessible. Epson does have a straight paper path, because they have the head rotated 90 degrees and printing vertically, and the paper ejects down, leaving a straight path from the top to the bottom of the printer. I suspect Canon can keep the paper flatter, because their vacuum system doesn't have to stick the paper to a vertical platen, but you can't stick a sheet of aluminum in a Canon. I haven't seen any stray ink marks yet from the Canon, and I always got them from time to time on the Epson 7900, which I attributed to papers not being perfectly flat. I haven't had any problem with 300 gsm plus baryta and Platine type papers making the turn to from roll to platen, but I'm not sure I'd try something in the 450-500 gsm range. Canon claims compatibility with papers up to 31 mil (0.8mm) - the only roll media I can find that is that thick is Hahnemuhle's Photo Rag 500 gsm (even most canvas is more like 0.5 to 0.6 mm). One old roll of Epson Exhibition Fiber showed a huge amount of curl coming off the Canon, but after trying a couple of other papers (Moab Juniper, Canson Platine) which barely curled at all, I'm not sure that wasn't either the specific paper or even the specific roll (which had been in my paper closet for a very long time - I seem to have forgotten about it). I wouldn't worry about the feed except with rigid media (there's no way to feed Breathing Color's aluminum sheets), or possibly extremely thick media or something on a backing sheet (I'm not sure I'd trust photo silk or Unryu paper attached to a backing - the thicker forms of Unryu that don't need a backing should be fine).
In the end, Canon or Epson? For most individual photographers - Canon. A friend has an iPF 6100 that has run for 8 or 9 years of sporadic printing - we've put heads in it once or twice, but it's always fired up ready to print, even after a couple of months without a print. If this printer comes close to that, I'll be ecstatic. For shops with enough demand to keep an Epson going, it's a closer call. If there's a gamut advantage, it's probably in favor of Epson, but it's minor. On the other hand, those Canon blacks and the chroma optimizer make a diffference too (I'd say Canon by a hair on overall print quality, but either will produce stunning prints). If you need really weird media, Epson - there will be some things that won't make that turn in reaching the Canon's platen, while an Epson will literally print on a sheet of metal.
One advantage to the Canon is that it can accept third-party media information files - no more calling expensive Platines "premium luster" - of course, both brands work with ICC profiles, but Canon goes a step farther and accepts custom inking levels, head heights and drying times. So far, only Canson seems to be providing these files among the major manufacturers (but I'd be surprised if Hahnemuhle, Moab and others didn't start). It's a multi step process to get the media information file into the printer and the driver, but it's not too bad once you get the hang of it yet. I haven't tried it yet, but you can actually make your own media information files using the sensors in the printer.
Dan
