Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon Pro 2000  (Read 1267 times)

Pwhalen68

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Canon Pro 2000
« on: May 05, 2018, 04:00:02 PM »

Planning on buying Canon Pro 2000 and need to know physical dimensions of printer with basket closed.
Logged

Ryan Mack

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 123
    • Ryan Mack on Facebook
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2018, 08:01:17 PM »

The specs page lists dimensions and installation space requirements.

http://ugp01.c-ij.com/ij/webmanual/Manual/All/PRO-2000/EN/LBGB/tp000183.html
Logged

Pwhalen68

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2018, 09:56:32 PM »

Thanks. Iíve been an Epson user for many years, but talking to my friends most have switched to Canon.
Logged

aaronchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 558
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2018, 06:37:19 AM »

Thanks. Iíve been an Epson user for many years, but talking to my friends most have switched to Canon.

I have just tested their new machines, it's great.
I'm considering to purchase a pro-6000 (60") for our lab.

aaron

Pwhalen68

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2018, 09:02:28 AM »

Thanks, I have printed for many years with Epson 9800.  Currently using P800 for small prints. it's a good small printer. But I print a lot and for economy and speed I need to upgrade to larger printer. Don't need 44" printer. 24" will do. Understand with Canon not nearly as much paper is wasted because of clogging.
Logged

sapobufo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2018, 01:04:47 PM »

I have just tested their new machines, it's great.
I'm considering to purchase a pro-6000 (60") for our lab.

aaron

It may not matter to you but the permanence of thrink set for the latest canons seems a bit on the low side.
http://wilhelm-research.com/Canson/WIR_Canson_2018_02_16.pdf
Logged

I.T. Supplies

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 358
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2018, 01:58:58 PM »

Canon's Lucia Pro ink is still in the longevity testing since it's a completely new inkset compared to Epson's updated ink.  Yes, it's surprising that nothing has been verified by now, but it could be going through different options of testing (I can't say for sure).  Technology wise, the Canon's does have the most up-to-date parts where as Epson just updated the head and ink and finally integrated a timer so it can check and clean nozzles based on your printing needs.

Canon Pro-2000 unboxed dimensions:
46(h)x43.7(w)x28(d)  will fit through standard doors just right with about an inch or so of room
You can tilt sideways (w/o ink and not attached to stand) for easiest movement through a door if needed.

Feature wise, Canon has more than Epson; but quality is very comparable to each other with color management matching the media and all settings correct before printing.  It just depends on what you're printing to say which is better.
Logged

aaronchan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 558
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #7 on: May 07, 2018, 02:20:49 PM »

It may not matter to you but the permanence of thrink set for the latest canons seems a bit on the low side.
http://wilhelm-research.com/Canson/WIR_Canson_2018_02_16.pdf

Yes, I have looked at this report when it was released.
I'm kinda surprised and I have reported back to Canon and they are discussing with the tokyo R&D department of what the F is going on.
Trust me, including the Canon regional management group, they were surprised about this report too.

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4140
    • waynefox.com
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #8 on: May 07, 2018, 02:21:05 PM »

Thanks, I have printed for many years with Epson 9800.  Currently using P800 for small prints. it's a good small printer. But I print a lot and for economy and speed I need to upgrade to larger printer. Don't need 44" printer. 24" will do. Understand with Canon not nearly as much paper is wasted because of clogging.
I would base the decision on other factors.  Clogging on the newest generation of Epson printers is substantially improved, and realize that all of these printers will need to use ink to keep clogs free.  Canon may use a little less, but also remember the head itself is a consumable and lifespan can be anywhere from 1 to 3 years.

Both machines have pros and cons, to me Epson wins on paper handling and now wins on longevity, canon wins on no PK/MK switching and perhaps slightly easier to maintain.  Lots of other things to consider.

Logged

I.T. Supplies

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 358
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #9 on: May 07, 2018, 02:57:20 PM »

Wayne- I'm curious on why you'd think Epson wins on paper handling when Canon has an automatic roll feeder so it's "less" direct handling.  Might be easier on sheets in some way, but I guess it depends on each user.  The end caps Epson has it a great feature vs a spindle.  In my opinion, timing to load a roll is faster on the Canon Pro series:

Demo on roll feeding and ink usage between Pro and P series LFP (estimate):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bEvZU7jvHA

Yes, there are pros and cons between Epson and Canon otherwise.
The only thing I would say with Epson heads is that if they do decide to go out or needs replaced (out of warranty), it can be very costly where Canon's is less expensive and replaceable.  Epson does make their heads to (hopefully) last the time that it works and they did update the head and ink set in the P series to work better than before; so less clogging but also with the built in timing feature now to help with that.  But Canon uses less ink during cleaning and printing.

So, it really depends on what you want from a printer to be honest.
Logged

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4140
    • waynefox.com
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #10 on: May 07, 2018, 09:49:11 PM »

Your video is deceiving and obviously trying to push Canon.  On the paper loading, I'm not sure why the Epson guy is still standing there.  As  soon as you hit the load button, you can close the top, hit the OK button on your paper type and leave.  the only reason I can think you are showing him standing there (doing nothing) was to try and sell the Canon.  I'm at my desk within seconds of hitting the load button on the Epson.  I've used a spindle for printing for many years, and the spindle less Epson wins hands down.  I also think the Epson straight through paper path makes it easier to work with very stiff media.

Wondering if anything else in your video can be trusted. I know years ago Canon bragged about being faster than an 11880, so I did some serious testing, the only way the Canon was faster was depending on the quality settings chosen on each  machine. but max quality vs max Quality on both machines and the Epson 11880 won, and trying to compare "equal" quality printing (hard to do since one is a 300dpi and other a 360 dpi based process) didn't prove the canon faster at anything but basically draft level printing. Great for CAD applications, not so much for fine art. but to be honest, for most producing fine art, speed isn't a big deal.

Additionally you demonstrate the canon using "less" ink, but wonder how the math would work out, since the Epson inks are about 25% less per ml than Canon.

They are both fine printers.  As I mentioned, I think evaluating both for what they deliver now, not based on the performance of a printer 3 or 4 generations older, is the best way to evaluate and make a decision.  Additionally, for years Canon has railed on how much better the inks were in fade testing, now that's flipped pretty seriously all of a sudden isn't a big deal anymore? I can't understand why all those that were ipf64/8400 users that switched to the new printers aren't up in arms about the inks.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 10:58:17 PM by Wayne Fox »
Logged

Czornyj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1825
    • zarzadzaniebarwa.pl
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #11 on: May 08, 2018, 05:24:30 AM »

Wondering if anything else in your video can be trusted. I know years ago Canon bragged about being faster than an 11880, so I did some serious testing, the only way the Canon was faster was depending on the quality settings chosen on each  machine. but max quality vs max Quality on both machines and the Epson 11880 won, and trying to compare "equal" quality printing (hard to do since one is a 300dpi and other a 360 dpi based process) didn't prove the canon faster at anything but basically draft level printing. Great for CAD applications, not so much for fine art. but to be honest, for most producing fine art, speed isn't a big deal.

Additionally you demonstrate the canon using "less" ink, but wonder how the math would work out, since the Epson inks are about 25% less per ml than Canon.

Canon is 600dpi not 300dpi, quality modes were never equal, and new PRO-series are over 100% faster in highest quality modes than x300 series. Contrary to Canon you never use full 700ml from Epson carts, and Canon uses much less ink for printing, maintanance and doesn't waste ink for PK<>MK swiching.

Wayne Fox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4140
    • waynefox.com
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #12 on: May 08, 2018, 03:18:04 PM »

Canon is 600dpi not 300dpi, quality modes were never equal, and new PRO-series are over 100% faster in highest quality modes than x300 series. Contrary to Canon you never use full 700ml from Epson carts, and Canon uses much less ink for printing, maintanance and doesn't waste ink for PK<>MK swiching.
The dpi comparison was in reference to speed tests of an 11880 vs the current canon printer at the time (ipf6100) which was claimed by Canon was substantially faster. I was comparing 300/600 dpi output of the Canon vs 360/720 dpi printer, both with multiple resolutions and quality settings.  It was difficult to compare "speeds" because first one needs to determine at which of the multitude of output quality settings produce similar quality. But the claim back then by Canon that it was substantially faster really didn't hold up, and in fact at Maximum quality the 11880 was substantially faster.

Nice that they are faster than the previous generations, as are the epsons. As I mentioned, when it comes to fine art printing taking a minute or two longer to make a large print probably isn't much of a consideration. Regarding ink, it's still questionable that ink costs would be substantially higher despite using more ink to print and maybe leaving a little in the cartridge, because the Epson inks cost about 25% less per ml than the canon.  so even using more and leaving a little, overall costs aren't as significant as the video implies.

The fact is the video is openly deceptive to try and favor the Canon when it shows the loading process. With the Epson as soon as you hit the load button, within a few seconds it will ask you to confirm your paper type then you can leave.  There is no reason to stand by the machine and wait until it's finished as the video implies. In previous firmware the printer didn't confirm that until the paper was loaded, but in previous firmware you never had to confirm it at the printer anyway, it would start printing with driver settings as soon as you sent a job.  With the new firmware you do have to confirm it but it now asks at the beginning of the loading process and not at then end.  So at no time in the history of using Epson printers have I had to stand next to the printer and  wait to do something once I started the loading process.  To me the fact that they were willing to imply something so obviously incorrect means the entire video suffers a credibility problem since it is obviously designed to make the canon look better even to the point of deception.  So how can I trust any conclusions, be it speed tests, ink usages etc. if they openly show a slant to favor the Canon. strange for a company that sells both printers.  Maybe the canon has better margins.

I already stated the Mk/Pk switching was an advantage for Canon in an earlier post.  There are many users who have no need to switch or rarely switch, so for them probably not a factor.  Others switch all the time, so definitely Canon has an advantage.

And I'm still am not clear why all the Canon users aren't up in arms about the poor performance of the inks since I'm pretty sure most bought the printers assuming they would be as good or better than the previous ink set.  For years now one of the arguments to switch from Epson to Canon was color permanence ... why would that be different now?

I think both are great machines, both produce terrific prints.  But when deciding make sure you compare the pros and cons of the current printers, and not draw conclusions by pointing to faults of previous generations of either printer.

Edit: I wasn't planning on adding to this thread, but the video also attempts to demonstrate the canon 4000 has a size advantage because it's shorter, but doesn't bother to show that the Canon is much deeper and requires 15" more depth.  Additionally, here's a screen grab from the beginning of the video ... obviously the video is extremely canon biased because it was created by Canon specifically for their dealer/sales networks.  Surprised a dealer linked it ...
« Last Edit: May 11, 2018, 10:23:09 PM by Wayne Fox »
Logged

John Caldwell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 680
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2018, 11:19:40 AM »

In case itís of interest, Iíll share the reasons I bought the Canon Prograf Pro 4000, with the Canon RU-41 Second Roll accessory, instead of replacing our Epson 9900. I also own, or have owned previously, the Epson 4900 and the HP Z3200 24Ē model.

Our Epson 9900ís head developed a Black channel clog that proved difficult to clear with consistency. The clog developed in absolute temporal relationship to a PK > MK switch, the first black ink swap that had been made in many months that machine. Thankfully, a good local NFP Fineart Gallery has shown interest in receiving the machine as a donation, and has made what I hope will prove a worthwhile decision to replace the 9900ís head at some discount offered them.

1) Canon offers a second roll accessory, called the RU-41 in the case of the 44Ē machine, and this second roll functions as either a take-up roll, or as a second media source roll. I had ruined enough long 44Ē prints in the paper basked of our Epson 9900, that Iíd grown quite sensitized to this issue. Iíd also ruined a handful of long 17Ē prints from the 4900 machine. The possibility of a take-up roll had become of enormous interest to me, so much so, that the second roll alone played a dominant place in my decision to buy the Canon system.

2)  PK/MK ink swap become a sore point for me. Itís not just the time and the ink, but I (and others) believe that a seldom used black ink line becomes a setup for sending congealed particulate material to an otherwise clean head. I am virtually *sure* the black ink swap killed my 9900ís head.

3) When I amortized the number of hours spent, banded prints thrown away, and the Epson Service Tanks full of ink costing real dollars, I had become weary of the Epson brand. By contrast, our 24Ē HP Z3200 simply Always worked, without either head cleanings or head replacement. Our Epson 4900, and 9900, has just not been in that reliability league, from Day One. But for the really excellent service provided by our Epson reseller and service consultant, Tastar Data Systems, I would have literally paid to have the Epson machines removed from my home long ago. Truth is, that had Tastar been able to sell me a Canon machine some time ago, I'd have gladly bought the Canon from them because I like dealing with Tastar so much.

4) Canon offers some meaningful media configuration tools, it does appear; and possibly some ease in loading roll materials over the HP and Epson machines. That the 44Ē Canon machine was nearly a foot less wide than our Epson 9900, even at the cost of being a little deeper, was of benefit in my room. These items were of minor importance to me.

5) I havenít lived nearly long enough with the Canon to have a feel for what long term experience is going to be like. Our Epson 9900 was DOA when it was bought in 2013, so weíre doing better there. Still, when new, the Epsonís worked and offered clear nozzle checks with reasonable amounts of use. Canonís documentation is absolutely the worst in its class - truly numbing - but you can call a human being on the phone and get some clarification on the many unclear points shown in Canonís documentation. Canonís front panel menus are OK and, aside from being written by someone with little English language technical writing, offer some guidance. Some feel unnerved by ink longevity tests showing Canon to have fallen behind Epson and HP but, as I see it, my prints are just not that important as history items and I'll be long in the ground before any of my prints deteriorate.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2018, 11:25:41 AM by John Caldwell »
Logged

David Budd

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 69
Re: Canon Pro 2000
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2018, 10:48:40 AM »

I have recently purchased a Canon Pro 2000, one of the concerns I had was the longevity of the Lucia Pro inks. Whilst Canson and WIR  have done tests I couldn't get a definitive answer from Canon Australia.

After much cajoling from the dealer he eventually managed to get this info on ink longevity, which I believe came from Canon Japan.

"We have had a response back from Canon INC CINC (Product Marketing/R&D) confirmed our official response to the Wilhelm Institutes research on longevity of Canonís Lucia Pro ink on Canson papers:
 
We acknowledge that the known the longevity is shorter than EPSON, but our focus for the Lucia PRO series printers and inks is higher image quality and great gamut rather than longevity"
 

Having come from a HP Z3100 that gave me 10 years of virtually maintence free printing, other than replacing two belts I'm hoping that the Pro 2000 will return the same favour.

And yes, the Canon's documentation is abysmal. Hard to believe a international company can turn out a manual that's full of redacted screen shots of previous printers and lacking in comprehension.

-David
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up