Information request for Canon PRO-4000 from long time users

[Czornyj]

I assume that in the sentence above you mean PRO-4000 instead of PRO-1000.
Anyway that's good news about PRO roll models ink consumption.
Thanks!

Yes, I meant PRO-4000 as well as all roll PRO models - sorry for typo.

Despite some teething troubles I'm very happy with my PRO-4000 and highly recommend it. It offers combination of outstanding quality, low running cost, high printing speed and ease of use.

[Mark D Segal]

Yes, I meant PRO-4000 as well as all roll PRO models - sorry for typo.

Despite some teething troubles I'm very happy with my PRO-4000 and highly recommend it. It offers combination of outstanding quality, low running cost, high printing speed and ease of use.

There's no question about the print quality from the Pro-1000/2000/4000 line of printers - they're really fine printers in respect of print quality. Also I'm glad to hear of your experience with maintenance ink on the larger models - I was unable to test that personally, other than for the 1000 which, as you say, seems to be different.

None of the manufacturers are prepared to espouse any kind of transparency on how and how much ink is used for maintenance, which is unfortunate. I'm often tempted to think that if automobile manufacturers can publish gasoline consumption under a specified and standardized set of conditions, it should be possible for the printing industry to do likewise for printers, but maybe it's just technically too different for this comparison to be valid, I don't know. As well, it isn't clear to me that maintenance ink should be a decisive variable in making a printer choice - I think there are a number of other factors that at least from my perspective would rank higher, recognizing that priorities would be different for different kinds of users and usage.

[Panagiotis]

I think there are a number of other factors that at least from my perspective would rank higher, recognizing that priorities would be different for different kinds of users and usage.

Here currently cost is ranking very high as a factor. The margins are very compressed.

Anyway I ordered the printer today and I want to thank you and all the others who participated in this thread for your help! Thank you!

[Czornyj]

Here currently cost is ranking very high as a factor. The margins are very compressed.

Anyway I ordered the printer today and I want to thank you and all the others who participated in this thread for your help! Thank you!

Congratulations! Remember to update FW to newest 2.07 immediately!

[Panagiotis]

Congratulations! Remember to update FW to newest 2.07 immediately!

I will do! Thank you! Any more info about why it is so urgent?

[Czornyj]

I will do! Thank you! Any more info about why it is so urgent?

It will take better care of print head

[Panagiotis]

It will take better care of print head

Good to know. Thanks!

[Dan Wells]

Baryta Prestige goes through the Pro-2000 (just like a 4000, but narrower) just fine - it is one of my favorite papers to use on mine. I also concur that it doesn't much care about being switched off for quite a while (months) - it may gurgle away for 15-20 minutes when coming back on from an extended sleep, but it prints right away, without so much as a manual nozzle check. If you do blow a head, it's a $500 5 minute replacement, unlike the Epsons where a head replacement is $1500 including the service call.

You can't run things that won't roll at all through the Pro series since the paper paths all have a ~180 degree turn. By contrast, the Epsons will print on anything including inflexible sheets of plastic or metal (the limit is 1.5mm thick, but it doesn't have to be flexible at all). I have a roll of silk on a backing paper that I'm trying to decide whether I trust on the Pro-2000 (I'm a little worried that the curve might cause it to detach from the backing). Interestingly, Canon claims to handle heavier roll media than Epson (Canon up to 0.8mm, Epson only up to 0.5mm). Looking at the paper paths, that's not intuitive - the Epsons have very little curve other than the roll itself - the paper feeds down from the top, passes the head a few degrees off vertical and comes out the bottom - essentially a straight, nearly vertical path (the cut sheet feed is truly straight, while the roll feed has a slight curve coming off the roll). The Canon feeds in the bottom front, makes a u-turn, passes the head horizontally and feeds out above where it came in.

The Epson paper path is clearly better, but it also leads to Epson's tricky pressurized ink system. Canon has a much simpler ink path with many fewer clogs in return for a slightly convoluted paper path. HP and the older 24" Canons got to a nearly straight, mostly horizontal paper path without putting the head at an odd angle that requires the tricky pressurized ink system, but that means the roll holder is behind the printer (the Canons put the roll holder at the top rear, accepting a slight curve, while the HP path is straighter, but the roll is more directly behind the printer). Hardly the best place to load paper... All three have advantages and disadvantages.

[Panagiotis]

Baryta Prestige goes through the Pro-2000 (just like a 4000, but narrower) just fine - it is one of my favorite papers to use on mine.

Thank you! I print a lot of Baryta Prestige on the PRO-1000 and I am waiting to try the rolls on the my new 4000 (which is still in its box since it came one month ago due  to preparations of my new studio).

I also concur that it doesn't much care about being switched off for quite a while (months) - it may gurgle away for 15-20 minutes when coming back on from an extended sleep, but it prints right away, without so much as a manual nozzle check. If you do blow a head, it's a $500 5 minute replacement, unlike the Epsons where a head replacement is $1500 including the service call.

Probably it went through a big cleaning cycle. I already have a PF-10 head which I bought when I thought that the PRO-1000 was close to need a replacement. I was wrong. Now it will serve as a back up head for both.

You can't run things that won't roll at all through the Pro series since the paper paths all have a ~180 degree turn. By contrast, the Epsons will print on anything including inflexible sheets of plastic or metal (the limit is 1.5mm thick, but it doesn't have to be flexible at all). I have a roll of silk on a backing paper that I'm trying to decide whether I trust on the Pro-2000 (I'm a little worried that the curve might cause it to detach from the backing). Interestingly, Canon claims to handle heavier roll media than Epson (Canon up to 0.8mm, Epson only up to 0.5mm). Looking at the paper paths, that's not intuitive - the Epsons have very little curve other than the roll itself - the paper feeds down from the top, passes the head a few degrees off vertical and comes out the bottom - essentially a straight, nearly vertical path (the cut sheet feed is truly straight, while the roll feed has a slight curve coming off the roll). The Canon feeds in the bottom front, makes a u-turn, passes the head horizontally and feeds out above where it came in.

The Epson paper path is clearly better, but it also leads to Epson's tricky pressurized ink system. Canon has a much simpler ink path with many fewer clogs in return for a slightly convoluted paper path. HP and the older 24" Canons got to a nearly straight, mostly horizontal paper path without putting the head at an odd angle that requires the tricky pressurized ink system, but that means the roll holder is behind the printer (the Canons put the roll holder at the top rear, accepting a slight curve, while the HP path is straighter, but the roll is more directly behind the printer). Hardly the best place to load paper... All three have advantages and disadvantages.

I understand that the roll paper path on the 4000 takes two 90 degree turns to reach the platen but since both turns are in the side of the curl of the roll why is this consider a drawback?

[samueljohnchia]

It's a common misunderstanding that Epson's straight paper path is better for roll media. Canon's design is indeed clearly better as it follows the natural curl of the paper. Epson's straight path actually poses a greater risk with the leading edge curl of the roll paper. So you occasionally hear the advice from Epson users to advance the roll slightly before printing. Not so on Canon.

[Czornyj]

It's a common misunderstanding that Epson's straight paper path is better for roll media. Canon's design is indeed clearly better as it follows the natural curl of the paper. Epson's straight path actually poses a greater risk with the leading edge curl of the roll paper. So you occasionally hear the advice from Epson users to advance the roll slightly before printing. Not so on Canon.

Epson leaves marks on the beginning of the paper, that's why you need to advance crumpled paper or rewind it after printing.

Paradoxically Canon can handle thicker/heavier media than Epson - as long as they're elastic enough to be bended.

[Dan Wells]

Interesting... The Canon curve actually may help roll media? I wonder if the Canon prints are more likely to need derolling when they come out? I've never had both brands at the same time, so I haven't had the opportunity to compare print curl coming off the printer.

In any case, I'll take the simpler ink system any day - not having to worry about always printing every week is huge... Canon is so much less maintenance intensive that the maintenance difference almost certainly overrides the ability to feed stiff sheets for all but the most frequently printing individual photographers (maybe not so for businesses that print every day)...

[Wayne Fox]

It's a common misunderstanding that Epson's straight paper path is better for roll media. Canon's design is indeed clearly better as it follows the natural curl of the paper. Epson's straight path actually poses a greater risk with the leading edge curl of the roll paper. So you occasionally hear the advice from Epson users to advance the roll slightly before printing. Not so on Canon.

There are some claims that some paper feeds “reverse” curl the paper in the process of feeding it and that’s bad for the paper.  I guess if one buys into that then the epson straight path avoids that. De-curling it is said can introduce micro cracks into delicate coatings on some paper.  Personally I don’t think there is any real evidence out there to support it.

The main discussion point I’ve heard about the straight paper path is it allows much thicker media to be used in the printer, such as poster boards or even aluminum sheets, and it’s also great for printing on delicate sheet paper. Obviously not something that everyone needs.

As far as it being a disadvantage for roll paper, I know several users who print on baryta and similar papers on Epson with no problems.  I print on legacy baryta all the time and don’t see the scratch marks mentioned. Maybe if I was trying to print borderless on such medias, but I don’t see much borderless printing attempted on the delicate medias like baryta papers.

[John Caldwell]

If personal anecdotes are permitted, I’ll share that I’ve just finished a pretty large job of about 80 prints, in varying sizes. It was really quite amazing to load roll after roll, 50 feet in length, and collect those prints hours later from the 2nd take up roll, neatly spooled, without touching the printer in the interim. The total print length was about 130’. While two 50’ rolls were Legacy Baryta, I also finished my remaining inventory of the famously thick and difficult now-discontinued Vibrance Baryta from BC. I realize this is one user’s experience, but after years of generating prints flawed by head clogs and kinks, devoting time to cleaning cycles over which I preside quite attentively, and other lost-time rituals, I’ll confess gratitude for our Pro 4000.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark D Segal]

You probaby meant they were neatly "spooled"! (Amazing what one letter can do, huh?)

[John Caldwell]

You probaby meant they were neatly "spooled"! (Amazing what one letter can do, huh?)

Right, Mark.

[samueljohnchia]

Interesting... The Canon curve actually may help roll media?

More like it doesn't cause as much resistance to the natural curl of roll media.

I wonder if the Canon prints are more likely to need derolling when they come out?

It makes no difference in the real world. Curly paper comes out just as curly from Epson/Canon/HP printers. The relatively short time it spends in the paper path during printing is immaterial.

[samueljohnchia]

The main discussion point I’ve heard about the straight paper path is it allows much thicker media to be used in the printer, such as poster boards or even aluminum sheets, and it’s also great for printing on delicate sheet paper. Obviously not something that everyone needs.

Actually, not quite. The new Canons are specced to auto feed thicker roll media than new Epsons (0.8 vs 0.5mm). The Epson straight paper path is better for rigid material that doesn't have a curl or bend. For manual loading of rigid media through the straight paper path, Epsons can take even thicker media, up to 1.5mm. The roll vs sheet/board media difference needs to be properly stated.

There are some claims that some paper feeds “reverse” curl the paper in the process of feeding it and that’s bad for the paper.  I guess if one buys into that then the epson straight path avoids that. De-curling it is said can introduce micro cracks into delicate coatings on some paper.  Personally I don’t think there is any real evidence out there to support it.

As far as it being a disadvantage for roll paper, I know several users who print on baryta and similar papers on Epson with no problems.  I print on legacy baryta all the time and don’t see the scratch marks mentioned. Maybe if I was trying to print borderless on such medias, but I don’t see much borderless printing attempted on the delicate medias like baryta papers.

The best paper path shape puts the least mechanical stress on the paper. None of the newer Canons or Epsons bend the paper enough to actually decurl it, that would require a paper path curving in the opposite direction, not even a straight paper path could do that.

You can raise the platten gap or head height so that the carriage does not smash into the leading edge curl, but then you will get uneven graininess as the spray would be nearer to the paper for some regions and further away for others. I can see this without a loupe, though I don't expect regular folks to ever notice. This problem also persists for sheet media which develop waves or curls at the edges.

[Wayne Fox]

Actually, not quite. The new Canons are specced to auto feed thicker roll media than new Epsons (0.8 vs 0.5mm). The Epson straight paper path is better for rigid material that doesn't have a curl or bend. For manual loading of rigid media through the straight paper path, Epsons can take even thicker media, up to 1.5mm. The roll vs sheet/board media difference needs to be properly stated.

I could have been clearer, basically that’s why I added the two examples ... certainly examples of rigid material.  Agreed it doesn’t apply to any roll papers.

[samueljohnchia]

Thanks for accepting the revised language so graciously.  I just wanted to make sure not to perpetuate further misunderstanding.