Canon pro 2600/4600 to replace HP Z 3200?

[Gryphon69]

x600 has new LUCIA Pro II
- MBK has much better dmax

That’s interesting: per Canon’s literature, MK is the only ink that has not been reformulated in the Lucia Pro II ink set (it’s the same ink as in the Lucia Pro I ink set). I had read that black density had been increased in the Canon Lucia Pro II ink set, but I had assumed they were referring to PK (which has been reformulated), not MK which is the same as before.

- scratch resistance on photo papers is vastly improved and just as good as it gets
- neutrality of BW is improved
- yellow pigment is completely reformulated, and the new inkset has much better longevity, better than Epson Ultrachrome Pro and not as good as HP Vivera, but pretty close

This is also interesting. What are you basing this on? As far as I know the only information about the Canon Lucia Pro II’s improved lightfastness is Canon’s own claim that permanence of prints made on Canon Photo Pro Platinum paper by using the new ink set is “up to 200 years” which sounds awfully vague and particularly is not backed up by tests made by any independent third-party testing organization like Wilhelm.

For reference, in 2020 Wilhelm ran permanence tests on certain Canson papers and the results were ratings between 96 and 138 years for color prints made with Epson UltraChrome HDX inks (the generation prior to the current UltraChrome PRO 10/12) and ratings between 37 and 86 years for color prints made with Canon Lucia Pro 1 inks, which therefore had quite a long way to go to catch up with Epson’s inks. Always for reference, in 2021 Wilhelm’s permanence ratings for color prints made on certain Epson papers with the current generation Epson UltraChrome PRO 10 inks were between 109 and 220 years.

Claiming without qualification that Canon Lucia Pro 2 inks perform better than Epson UltraChrome PRO inks is an important statement and extremely good news for Canon: what sources (other than Canon’s own marketing claims) do you have to back that up?

[snip]

[Czornyj]

That’s interesting: per Canon’s literature, MK is the only ink that has not been reformulated in the Lucia Pro II ink set (it’s the same ink as in the Lucia Pro I ink set). I had read that black density had been increased in the Canon Lucia Pro II ink set, but I had assumed they were referring to PK (which has been reformulated), not MK which is the same as before.

New reformulated MBK was already introduced in GP-2000/4000 and PRO-300, and that's the only reason of misleading statement it's not "new", but obviously it is and there's noticeable difference of substantial 0,5 dmax increase.

[Gryphon69]

New reformulated MBK was already introduced in GP-2000/4000 and PRO-300, and that's the only reason of misleading statement it's not "new", but obviously it is and there's noticeable difference of substantial 0,5 dmax increase.

Ah, that explains it! Thank you - they sure could have made that clearer.

[Kyle Jackson]

I used to trawl printplanet kind of regularly, but I got frustrated with the quality of discussion there (there were a lot of "help me I have no idea what I'm doing" type posts asking for help with problems that could easily be solved by RTFM).

That was probably me haha 

[Kyle Jackson]

...“up to 200 years” which sounds awfully vague and particularly is not backed up by tests made by any independent third-party testing organization like Wilhelm.

This may be at risk of generalized vagueposting but... Based on what I've read here in recent years, some have raised big question marks on that group's test methods/results. (Search this forum for the name, and maybe the word "trust" at the same time and you'll find some things to read...) So much so that I've been using other resources suggested here for reliable objective info (hopefully). Aardenberg is one I reference.

I wanted to mention this here because I recall one of those discussions was specifically around some "200-yr" claims for a particular brand, and some questionable dynamics with that brand. I don't recall the specifics now but when I saw you mention 200 years and that group's name it def triggered something in memory..., but it might be only coincidence.

Given my spotty memory on it at the moment it's probably best I let you explore it firsthand.

Sorry for the side-track from the main topic.

[Gryphon69]

This may be at risk of generalized vagueposting but... Based on what I've read here in recent years, some have raised big question marks on that group's test methods/results. (Search this forum for the name, and maybe the word "trust" at the same time and you'll find some things to read...) So much so that I've been using other resources suggested here for reliable objective info (hopefully). Aardenberg is one I reference.

I wanted to mention this here because I recall one of those discussions was specifically around some "200-yr" claims for a particular brand, and some questionable dynamics with that brand. I don't recall the specifics now but when I saw you mention 200 years and that group's name it def triggered something in memory..., but it might be only coincidence.

Given my spotty memory on it at the moment it's probably best I let you explore it firsthand.

Sorry for the side-track from the main topic.

Thanks Kyle: I am aware and don’t disagree on the question marks as to the reliability of Wilhelm’s permanence tests and above all their testing methodology. I am a huge supporter of Mark McCormick’s outstanding work at Aardenburg, including his breakthrough research about LILIS and his push for updating permanence testing parameters so as to test for LILIS too, as it may potentially severely reduce Wilhelm’s permanence ratings for papers that include OBA’s (and of course TiO2). Sadly but sort of unsurprisingly, his efforts have had very little traction with paper manufacturers and distributors and as far as I know discussions with Wilhelm to update their testing methodology have long stopped.

However:

1. The biggest flaw (that I am aware of!) in Wilhelm’s testing methods only affects papers containing OBA’s (because LILIS only occurs when TiO2 is present at the same time as OBA’s) and therefore Wilhelm’s results for OBA-free papers should be (much?) more reliable than those for papers containing OBA’s.

2. As far as I am aware, Mark at Aardenburg has not released independent permanence testing reports in a while, so (always as far as I know) Wilhelm is currently the only source of “independent” third-party permanence tests of paper/ink combinations.

3. Whatever Wilhelm’s tests may be worth, they are an independent assessment of lightfastness of Canon’s and Epson’s inks when used in combination with certain papers. As I mentioned, the comparison between Epson’s penultimate generation UltraChrome inks versus Canon’s penultimate generation Lucia Pro inks when used in combination with several Canson papers (many of which are OBA-free) was overwhelmingly in favor of Epson UltraChrome inks. Also, Wilhelm’s tests on Epson’s latest generation UltraChrome PRO10 inks show a meaningful improvement over the previous generation UltraChrome HDX inks in terms of lightfastness: it is true that this second set of tests was made on a selection of Epson papers, but these included several Epson Legacy papers which are widely believed to be made by Canson based on their own papers, so this second test does appear to correlate to a large extent with that made on Canson papers.

4. Having said all of the above, my point stands that an unqualified assertion that Canon Lucia Pro 2 inks perform better in terms of lightfastness than the current generation of Epson UltraChrome inks is an important statement, but I have yet to hear on what that assertion is based, as I am not aware that any independent permanence tests have been run on Canon Lucia Pro 2 inks and I certainly hope that the assertion is not based on Canon’s own marketing claims, because if Wilhelm’s testing parameters may be questionable, should we instead take Canon’s own claims as unquestionable? And even if we did, shouldn’t we then consider Epson’s own permanence claims for their UltraChrome PRO10 inks (which coincidentally match Canon’s) equally unquestionable?

So, all I am asking is whether there are any objective parameters backing up a statement that Canon Lucia Pro 2 inks outperform Epson UltraChrome PRO10/12 inks in terms of lightfastness.

[Kyle Jackson]

So, all I am asking is whether there are any objective parameters backing up a statement that Canon Lucia Pro 2 inks outperform Epson UltraChrome PRO10/12 inks in terms of lightfastness.

For sure, I'd be asking the same thing.

Btw sorry if it sounded like I was dismissing your question on the thread's topic, not my intent. It was only a side concern about the reliability and objectivity of that particular source. And indeed it was the questions surrounding objectivity/independence that stuck in my mind most from things I read around here..., but whether they are merely conjecture or not I don't know. It got the impression from it all that a brand(s) might be sponsoring "testing" there purely for marketing the name with their printer/ink claims, and then never actually releasing any data (or it maybe never even being done).

Sorry for the vagueposting, I'll go back to lurking now lol 

[Gryphon69]

For sure, I'd be asking the same thing.

Btw sorry if it sounded like I was dismissing your question on the thread's topic, not my intent. It was only a side concern about the reliability and objectivity of that particular source. And indeed it was the questions surrounding objectivity/independence that stuck in my mind most from things I read around here..., but whether they are merely conjecture or not I don't know. It got the impression from it all that a brand(s) might be sponsoring "testing" there purely for marketing the name with their printer/ink claims, and then never actually releasing any data (or it maybe never even being done).

Sorry for the vagueposting, I'll go back to lurking now lol 

Thank you - absolutely no need to apologize for anything! We are just chatting about printers and inks :-)
I was just trying to better explain my viewpoint.
I understand the reservations around Wilhelm’s testing methods and “independence”. But since (to my knowledge) they are currently the only let’s call them third-party (not to use the word “independent”) testing lab for ink permanence, if we disregard their testing results because we consider them unreliable (which I am perfectly happy to do), then we are left with nothing else but the ink manufacturers’ marketing claims as to the expected longevity of their own inks, which are certainly as dubious as Wilhelm’s test results.
So if this is the situation we are in (unless of course I am missing something), then I think that the best we can do is to refrain from trying to establish whether ink set X is more or less lightfast than ink set Y (because we have no reliable data to support that conclusion), and just be happy that both Canon and Epson continue developing their respective ink formulations and continue releasing new generations of inks that improve over previous generations.
Personally I am amazed at how outstanding Canon’s and Epson’s current lineup of printers (subject perhaps to a couple of exceptions) and inks are and the quality of the prints they are capable of producing.
Just my 2 cents of course.

[Kyle Jackson]

I understand the reservations around Wilhelm’s testing methods and “independence”. But since (to my knowledge) they are currently the only let’s call them third-party (not to use the word “independent”) testing lab for ink permanence, if we disregard their testing results because we consider them unreliable (which I am perfectly happy to do), then we are left with nothing else but the ink manufacturers’ marketing claims as to the expected longevity of their own inks, which are certainly as dubious as Wilhelm’s test results.

I guess Aardenburg hasn't released anything for relatively recent printers/ink/media? I still use legacy HP printers so their old results is all I've looked at. I can't find a way to sort their test reports database by date (no date sort/filter option), and 2017 is the most recent year that shows up in the text search results.

If Wilhelm's results for archival/stable papers are reliable then I guess can use those for a rough A-to-B comparison between printers/inksets like you said. But I gather even those aren't available for some relatively recent printers because neither they nor the brands released the results, like you highlighted in this thread (or they only bothered with non-archival / coated papers etc).

[Gryphon69]

I guess Aardenburg hasn't released anything for relatively recent printers/ink/media? I still use legacy HP printers so their old results is all I've looked at. I can't find a way to sort their test reports database by date (no date sort/filter option), and 2017 is the most recent year that shows up in the text search results.

If Wilhelm's results for archival/stable papers are reliable then I guess can use those for a rough A-to-B comparison between printers/inksets like you said. But I gather even those aren't available for some relatively recent printers because neither they nor the brands released the results, like you highlighted in this thread (or they only bothered with non-archival / coated papers etc).

Yes, that’s my understanding too: if I am not mistaken, Mark at Aardenburg has lately been focusing on other stuff and just like you said I am not aware of him having published recent lightfastness test results (my understanding is that running those tests is expensive and whoever does it needs funding from someone, which makes things more complicated if funding comes from the manufacturer of the products that would be tested).
Sadly there appears to be no reliable data set to consider when it comes to assessing permanence expectations for any ink/paper combination.

[HCHeyerdahl]

Thank you all for many useful comments.

I am waiting for a final prise quote from my dealer on both the 2600 and 2400. From the input here and elsewhere, I expect to pull the trigger on one of them.

[Kyle Jackson]

Thank you all for many useful comments.

I am waiting for a final prise quote from my dealer on both the 2600 and 2400. From the input here and elsewhere, I expect to pull the trigger on one of them.

How did it go?

[HCHeyerdahl]

I have ordered the Canon pro 4600 with the extra roll. Expecting delivery in a couple of weeks!!

Meanwhile I am switching parts between my 24 and 44 inch Z to see if I can maintian one of them for a while to use up ink. I can not print large images because both belts have started to dropp small particles on the print every once in a while.

[Kyle Jackson]

Cool, can't wait to hear what you think of the Canon 4600 series compared to the HP Z3100. I've been casually browsing about what my next printer might be (*if* there's a next printer) and the Canon 2600 seems to be the leading option, assuming it has a built-in spectro for profiling like the HPs do.

Yeah belt flakes are a real pain in the HPs. I recently re-belted both my Z3100 and Z3200 so they should be good for a little while.

But I also recently destroyed most of the heads plus the carriage PCA in my Z3100. I got it running again but I've exhausted my supply of good MK-R heads so it's a floor ornament now. At this point I'm probably shuffling supplies to the Z3200 to keep it going until exhausted. It was a rescue printer that I've barely used since I got it running again, because the Z3100 was still working so well (better gamut with less effort, except for red ofc).

[HCHeyerdahl]

Unfortunately the Canon does not have a spectro.

I am going to miss the ability to make my own profiles like I can on the HP.

[Kyle Jackson]

Well that's disappointing  For some reason I thought it did.

Now I'm wondering if any current printers have a spectro...

[Alan Goldhammer]

Yes, that’s my understanding too: if I am not mistaken, Mark at Aardenburg has lately been focusing on other stuff and just like you said I am not aware of him having published recent lightfastness test results (my understanding is that running those tests is expensive and whoever does it needs funding from someone, which makes things more complicated if funding comes from the manufacturer of the products that would be tested).
Sadly there appears to be no reliable data set to consider when it comes to assessing permanence expectations for any ink/paper combination.

I sent him a note several months ago and he told me that he's stopped doing the permancy studies as there has been little interest from manufacturers or the larger public. He's keeping the website up for now but closed the business side down.

Alan

[Kyle Jackson]

I sent him a note several months ago and he told me that he's stopped doing the permancy studies as there has been little interest from manufacturers or the larger public. He's keeping the website up for now but closed the business side down.

That's a bummer. But I guess not surprising, given the general waning of things in the printing sphere. And the broader market (or industry) doesn't seem too fussed about longevity of things.