New Canon LFP PRO-x000 to PRO-x100 printer changes?

[Alan Goldhammer]

Compare the new Canon Ink to the older inkset. In my mind the newer printers should stay the same or improve in ink longevity. At least for those that care about this. Why go backwards. They should of kept the same inkset, forget the gloss enhancer.

http://wilhelm-research.com/Canson/WIR_Canson_Fine_Art_and_Photo_Papers_2019-08-22.pdf

Under the worst case scenario for Canon which has the 'weakest' ink set according to this Wilhelm study, a framed under glass image will last long enough with a range of 40-80 years depending on the paper choice.   In office installations do you really think your images will be on the wall for a longer period than that?  Also, for larger prints wouldn't canvas with protective coating be the choice.  there is no longevity data in this set for that.  If permanency greater than that is desired go and get an HP wide format printer.

[deanwork]

Well his question was , why would they go backwards? I agree,  they shouldn’t and were sneaky about not letting people know about it until a lot of folks bought the printers and found out a year or two later they had gone backwards.

As for big prints, no most people don’t want canvas,  though I personally think it is something to seriously consider for avoiding framing cost if nothing more.

Fact is if people don’t make an issue of these things they say “people don’t care” which usually is wrong.

Under the worst case scenario for Canon which has the 'weakest' ink set according to this Wilhelm study, a framed under glass image will last long enough with a range of 40-80 years depending on the paper choice.   In office installations do you really think your images will be on the wall for a longer period than that?  Also, for larger prints wouldn't canvas with protective coating be the choice.  there is no longevity data in this set for that.  If permanency greater than that is desired go and get an HP wide format printer.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Well his question was , why would they go backwards? I agree,  they shouldn’t and were sneaky about not letting people know about it until a lot of folks bought the printers and found out a year or two later they had gone backwards.

As for big prints, no most people don’t want canvas,  though I personally think it is something to seriously consider for avoiding framing cost if nothing more.

Fact is if people don’t make an issue of these things they say “people don’t care” which usually is wrong.

I moved to a Canon Pro 1000 after my 3880 suffered a black ink switch failure.  The cost of parts and a new ink set were not worth the DIY repair job.  As I noted in a previous post, my Canon prints look better than the Epson ones and the paper feed mechanism and build quality are far better than the Epson P800.  I spent a lot of time going back and forth in terms of which printer to get and for my needs the Canon won out.  It looks like an even better decision now that the firmware is updated and I can print larger than 17x25 if I need to.

If I were going to buy a wide format printer, it would be an HP.

[deanwork]

That’s really cool. It seems like in the desktop realm Canon has made a much more durable and professional printer . My client has an Epson P800 and we’ve been playing with his lately. He turns it on once a month and the nozzles are always clear. The color output is really good and the neutral QTR bw on both matte and gloss fiber is really good ( a lot of that goes to Roy Harrington because he has really nailed the generic curves for that machine.) But I agree, the construction is rinky dink, even compared to my 3880, and I wouldn’t expect it to last very long, who knows. For a desktop unit I’d probably buy the Canon too. What I love about Canon is the robustness of their construction and clean nozzles and the big ones the ability to easily replace heads.

Maybe because I’m getting older, or because I’m not a big volume printmaker, but I really respect it when machines last. I’m still using my IPf 8300 a lot and I tend to restore printers rather than replacing them often.


John

I moved to a Canon Pro 1000 after my 3880 suffered a black ink switch failure.  The cost of parts and a new ink set were not worth the DIY repair job.  As I noted in a previous post, my Canon prints look better than the Epson ones and the paper feed mechanism and build quality are far better than the Epson P800.  I spent a lot of time going back and forth in terms of which printer to get and for my needs the Canon won out.  It looks like an even better decision now that the firmware is updated and I can print larger than 17x25 if I need to.

If I were going to buy a wide format printer, it would be an HP.

[stevenfr]

I tested the HP Z9 with three HP labs that printed my test prints. Not one of the labs could match the gamut from my Canon IPF8400. Even the lab in Barcelona. Maybe I could do better than the labs HP to match the gamut in my prints or maybe its because the HP uses less inks that the gamut is not as good.

I sell my large format prints in fine art galleries and have sold to over a 100 corporate clients. I would say the demand for canvas prints from my clients is 5% or less.

I still say if I was Canon why cut ink longevity. I think the photographer that produces prints for sale or for their own homes should care. Canon should care.

[deanwork]

If you tried three labs that’s not good. Which colors are they having trouble with and what was the test image like, subtle hues or saturated or both?  I usually test with the Atkinson chart or something like that.

I have extreme doubts about monochrome after they removed the light gray. That’s bad news anyway you want to look at it. This is the reason I restored my z3100 to back up my z3200.

You would think people who print daily with them would be describing more direct comparisons between the z9
and the Canons and Epsons but I have heard almost nobody talking about the z9. I just read HP is laying off many thousands from their printer division. Not a good sign for us

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-03/hp-inc-to-cut-as-much-as-16-of-workforce-amid-print-unit-woes

I tested the HP Z9 with three HP labs that printed my test prints. Not one of the labs could match the gamut from my Canon IPF8400. Even the lab in Barcelona. Maybe I could do better than the labs HP to match the gamut in my prints or maybe its because the HP uses less inks that the gamut is not as good.

I sell my large format prints in fine art galleries and have sold to over a 100 corporate clients. I would say the demand for canvas prints from my clients is 5% or less.

I still say if I was Canon why cut ink longevity. I think the photographer that produces prints for sale or for their own homes should care. Canon should care.

[stevenfr]

It was the saturation of colours and the reds and yellows which  were not as good. If my ipf8400 goes down I will have to decide between the HP and the Epson. I am not sure I want to deal with the clogging on the Epson. Maybe it has improved with their new series of printers.