Canon 9000-2 vs other CLI-8 printers: notice much diference?

[l_d_allan]

From mikling earlier this year

I always had a suspicion about the marketing gimmicks with the printer manufacturers. My suspicion was profound because I had long noticed that the more expensive printers did not produce the expected superiority. Add to this the aspect that there are many misconceptions about the number of inks and the image quality.

So I was wondering about the differences between the print quality of the MG8120 and the iP4820. The MG8120 is a much more expensive printer than the iP4820. Yes, it is a multifunction unit etc. And then again it sported an extra grey cartridge to be used in B&W output. But what about the print quality or exactly what was the difference in color ??????

I've got a Canon PIXMA Pro 9000-2 and also an iP4500. Both use CLI-8 carts ... the ip4500 has CMYK + PGI-5bk ... the 9000-2 has CMYK + Red + Green + PhotoMagenta + PhotoCyan.

I've printed out a variety of Kodak-like test prints, and looked at them closely. I really can't tell much difference ... both look really good to me. Based on my limited experience, the iP4500 is simpler to use because it tends to use up color ink more evenly so I have fewer delays to replace PC and PM carts.

I was wondering if other owners with the 9000-2 and a simpler Canon PIXMA CMYK printer can tell much difference. Perhaps I am ignorant about what to look for? Or deficient eye-sight?



The last three are photos of pictures painted by wife. I find this to be a good test of my entire front-to-back color management because I can compare to the original painting in controlled lighting:
* Does the original painting look like the monitor image to test monitor calibration? (using an Ott Lite to illuminate the painting)
* Does the monitor image look like the print to test printer profile?
* Does the original painting look like the print to test front-to-back color management?

To distinquish between different prints made with different settings, I add a text layer to the original .tif images and include the settings for the print, including:
* date
* printer (iP4500 vs 9000-2)
* Ink used (OPC vs Canon oem)
* Paper used (Kirkland vs Canon vs etc.)
* Profile used, or Printer-Manages-Color:Auto
* MediaType (PlusGlossy2 vs Matte vs etc.)
* Quality (High vs Standard vs Fast)
* Xps (16-bit or 8-bit print driver ... unclear if it matters with Windows?)
* Black Point Compensation
* RenderingIntent (Relative-Colorimetric vs Perceptual vs Saturation vs etc.)
* Software application (Photoshop vs Canon DPP vs Canon EasyPhotoPrintEx vs etc.)
* Other settings that may apply to your circumstances?

I wasn't able to find the first image (Adobe ColorFile.tif) on the internet, but was able to obtain a copy (thanks Wil). At the risk of infringing on I.P. here is a link to the non-text-layer version , and a text-layer version .

The third image is from the website of the author of "Fine art printing for photographers : exhibition quality prints with inkjet printers", by Uwe Steinmueller. Here is an essay explaining what to look for when evaluating a print made from the .tif file. And a link to a .tif file with a text layer (70mb .tif file)

 

[Redbrickman]

The paintings look really nice, I especially like the last one of the black dog.

 

[martin0reg]

I_d_allan,
I agree with your observation. When I had a IP3000 and a IP4000 I could not see much difference too - and there should be a clear advantage for the 4000 as the 3000 has no (photo)black, photos are printed with C-M-Y only. But especially the greys were not really better with the 4000, both had a slight greenish tint in greys, both made good photos - if the ink was good!
It seems to me that the printer driver and the pattern of droplets are as important as the number of different color cartridges.

Scans from your prints would be interesting, although the scanner itself can cause a color shift.
I would like to see some comparisons of your tests (OEM vs. third party ink and paper). If you have a decent scanner at a resolution from 600/1200 dpi and higher you should see the pattern of ink droplets on the paper. Crops could show us the details.
The technology of inkjet printers might be maxed out...??

 

[l_d_allan]

Scans from your prints would be interesting

Sorry ... don't have a scanner.

 

[nche11]

I can hardly agree that there isn't much differences between ip3000 and ip4000. Ip3000 prints black by composite CMY. Ip4000 uses its own black ink for black. This makes a huge difference. If you print photos that do not contain much deep shadow or black in them you naturally won't see much differences.

Same thing for Pro9000 series printers vs. ip4500. If you print photos that do not contain a very wide range of colors, including very saturated reds and greens you will not see much differences either between the two printers. It is true that pricing does not always reflect differences in feature differences of printers. But a Pro9000 is truly different from a mediocre cheap low end printer with fewer ink cartridges. I actually have found that ip4xxx series printer not great for printing photos. 9000 series printers produce more accurate colors especially in colors that are extreme and difficult for printers with fewer cartridges to print. There is no way you can produce the same green from a pro9000's green ink by an ip4500 using CMY inks.

I am completely surprised that a professional ink retailer gave a statement that is so out of touch of truth. If you go out on a regular day with a point and shoot digital camera and bring home with hundreds of snap shots I won't suspect a thing if you say ip4500 and Pro9000 make little differences in printing those photos. But if you spend a couple of moths in Utah, Arizona, Nevada and California deserts with one of those latest DSLRs from Nikon or Canon you will not want to waste your time, ink and paper on an ip4500 to produce your work for a gallery or an exhibition. Ip4500 will be clearly no match to 9000 series, not even close.

If you drive a Porsche in downtown Boston or around Cambridge you will not feel it much different from driving a Toyota Corolla. Corolla is not a bad car but you do have to drive on the freeway to see how much better a Porsche is.

I have had Canon 8 cartridge printers since the early days of ip8500 to the latest 9000 series. Right from the first day I had my ip8500 I noticed a significant difference in how more accurate the most vibrant reds and greens my ip8500 printed than my i960 did. Ip4500 is not really close to pro9000's performance. BTW, are you using a good set of ink on your pro9000? That could be the culprit if your Pro9000 does not print distinctly better.

 

[The Hat]

nche11
I am sorry because I am on the complete opposite side to you on this one.
I have a half dozen Canon printers and the mid range printers do extremely well against their better brothers.

My printers all use the same brand of inks (fotoRite) with the same Photo paper (Sihl)
the same sample picture and the results are the same (extremely difficult to tell apart).
One of the printers has just 3 colours and does an amazingly good photo in comparison to the others no question about it.

The photo black in the four and five colour printers does not print black in the photo at all.
It only purpose is to do outline and add shadows (i.e. grey) that is all the CMY does the rest,
that's how three colour printers compete with the bigger boys.

As far as the point and shoot camera is concerned, They can take the best photograph in the world given the right conditions
and just like the Corolla it does the same speed on the highway as the Porsche, the camera doesnt make the photograph its the guy behind it.. :|

 

[nche11]

No need to apologize, Hat. Everyone is entitled his/her opinions. I don't know about the ink you use but I do have a few packages of Sihl paper totaled a few hundred sheets. It's not the best paper I ever used. The Kirkland brand paper, originally made in Switzerland but now apparently packaged in Mexico, is a much better paper. And my Pro9000 simply beat every 4 or 5 cartridge Canon printers for the same photos printed. It was rumored that the Kirkland paper is actually made by Ilford in Switzerland because Switzerland has only one photo paper manufacturer, which is Ilford.

However, I do not agree with your statement that the photo black in 4 or 5 color printers does not print black on the photo. I am pretty sure this is wrong. Light gray colors may be printed with CMY inks but the darker shadows are definitely printed by the photo black ink. Try to use cheap ink for your 4 color printer you will see gray instead of dark black but the same ink with an additional photo black will give a totaly different result. The shadow will be much darker black. This can be easily proven.

I am not against point and shoot cheap digital cameras. My point was users of these type of cameras usually take snap shots and they take hundreds a day. The photos are usually not taken with much attention to artistic content or even composition, not to mention color balance and watch for histogram for appropriate exposure. Most snap shots have blown out highlihght or blocked shadow. These point and shoot cameras have small dynamic range for the sensor and they don't capture a full range of colors either. I am not saying you can't take great photos with them. I agree it is the people behind the camera that matters. You can use a pin hole camera to capture the whole scene of the Golden Gate Bridge. However, a Porsche can zoooom at 180 MPH any time on an Autobahn freeway but a Corolla would have to floor all the way to make 120. You do need better tools for better photography. That's the fact. An 4 or 5 cartridge printer is definitely no match to an 8 cartridge printer.

 

[mikling]

Whoever said that the Pro9000 is not superior to the CMYK brethren within the same generation? They are. However as the Hat says it is not as dramatic as some might think. nche11, yes, you are surprised that I call it as I see it, because am I supposed to exaggerate the small differences? Am I supposed to hype it. No.

Many purchasers of high end printers, even if they do not need the width, do so with the belief that they will obtain superior photos. Many of them do not understand the issues they face in trying to print what they see on the screen and color management issues. The general thought of the typical consumer is that 8 carts must be much better than 4 carts.... and off they go.

My thread related to similar printers using identical cartridges except for one color. Not a comparison of a Pro9000 versus an iP4000 or something similar. You know some photographers are hung up on the number of megapixels or the highest ISO the camera is rated for etc. Well, don't get hung up with the number of cartridges. It could get you into trouble making these kinds of judgments.

Printers with more inks can actually create more challenges that must be overcome. One such area is inversion when the Light versions of Cyan and Magents do not blend well with the full strength Cyan and Magenta. This is similar to having crossover problems in HiFi speakers that are 4 way and 6 way etc. Quite often, if the design is not implemented well, a 2 way speaker can sound better and often does. A similar situation exists in printers. In trying to extend the color printing abilities, more problems can be created than are solved if not properly implemented. Even when color management is applied, it covers up a major hole and is similar to using an equalizer to a poor sounding speaker. Equalization can only do so much at times.

What I can assure you is that a Pro9000 matched up with poor inks against an iP4500 with good inks will yield a surprise for you. A Porsche with poor skinny tyres will not outcorner a corolla with high performance rubber. The newer printers from Canon are sporting some new inks which looks to be giving them some ooomph without the need for increasing the number of cylinders.

And then there was a more recent story I can relate to

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon-40D-handson.shtml

Go to the bottom of the article.

As sometimes happens, something that I write in all innocence is challenged by those who say it simply can't be so. In this case it's my claim, above, that "...the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D". Several emails arrived right after publication challenging this claim. The fact that these people may not yet have had an opportunity to try a 40D for themselves (and may not even own or have shot with a 5D) has nothing to do with it. Their sacred cow has been pricked.



Remember this is all a matter of opinion so there will be dissent.

 

[martin0reg]

I have found a german magazine, they measure the gamut and shows the results in a chart/diagram.

The gamut of 4500 (CMYK) is almost identical to IX5000 (CMY)
http://www.colorfoto.de/testbericht/canon-pixma-ip4500-329170,189.html
http://www.colorfoto.de/testbericht/canon-pixma-ix-5000-330202,189.html
They say, the ix5000 is almost as good as the 4500, regarding color prints. Only B&W prints are considerable better with the 4500.
As I said, when I had a ip3000 (beside my 4000/4500) the results seemed to be very similar, but I did not test B&W very well.
However I would prefer the CMYK model over the CMY, the photoblack could help for better shadows (but how much better...?)

The gamut of 9000 is bigger:
http://www.colorfoto.de/testbericht...-pro9000-mk-ii-zweite-auflage-310203,189.html
but the test results of overall quality of prints not very much better (see the results/points in the "testergebnisse")

If the links doesn't work, go to rating list of printers
http://www.magnus.de/bestenlisten-1702.html
click on (computer)-drucker

 

[nche11]

Martin, there is an explanation (my opinion) when these tests indicate that Pro9000 does have a greater gamut but the prints do not look much better. It is because most pictures printed have little colors that need the extra gamut to print. The majority of the colors on the pictures we print simply are covered by both the 5 color and the 8 color printers. If your picture has full of very saturated reds and greens you will quickly notice the difference. Those colors do not exist in natural environment that we live. Those colors may exist if you go out an walk into national parks, deserts, and places that we are attracted to. You may captura those colors if your camera gear is capable of it.

The fact Pro9000 has a greater gamut it is already tells it is a more capable printer from the engineering point of view which is not a personal opinions. However, it would be wrong to expect it to be spectacularly different from a common 5 color printer. Thanks for bring these links up.

When you are comparing two computers I think a 2.0GHz computer will not be much different from a 3.0Ghz one when used for daily computer activities. You may need to look at the specs or to put both computers to heavy load of tasks too feel the real difference.