Looking at the new Canon PRO-300

[stratman]

Keith has now confirmed there is no densitometer and has revised the wording in his article.
As such, there is no new feature that stands out to justify the Pro-300 high MSRP. Unless there is another superb feature set which was overlooked, this product might simply just sit on the shelf. Save your pennies and consider the Pro-1000 and get a real upgrade.

Thanks for the followup.

From the comments here and my readings, I think the Pro-10 retains the better value over the Pro-300. If you need any of the new features on the Pro-300 then maybe an Epson represents a better value for that feature set. You can thank @Ink stained Fingers for my Epson education.

 

[mikling]

The real value if you are so inclined in the Pro-1000. It is a true High End printer by any measure and it fits on your desk, provided the desk is sturdy enough. It is an end game printer. ...again provided you want that kind of performance and can afford it. If you are dedicated to the art of living cheap but still want the best. You can even refill it with OEM ink and still save significant money by overriding chips....and your IQ remains true high end.
Get it with a rebate and printing reviews are things of the past.
Similarly, the Pro-100 kind of represents an end game printer for those not inclined to move higher nor need to. Any further improvements are likely to be inconsequential in real terms.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

There is something what I'm missing with all these printer tests/reports - for the P300 and many other reviews on the internet, the unit under test is a color printer, the manufacturers - Epson or Canon - claim gamut improvements, better black levels etc with every new model , but no review does dicsuss any detail of these colors - how much 'color' - saturation - do I get - how does this compare to the previous model - how does it compare to the competition - how much are the improvements - just measurable or visible - how much difference does tlhe 'improved' black actually deliver - and all these claims just refer to one specific paper used in such announcement - but is such improvement visible as well on other papers which are typically used ? Camera reports go in much more technical detail - e.g. of the sensor - down to the electron yield of the photon wells but I don't see anything at all about the actual color performance of a printer in almost any review on the internet - with a very few exceptions - e.g. on luminous-landscape - but more comparing the gamut of papers than of printers. The P300 now comes with Lucia Pro inks - how much of a difference/improvement does this change deliver vs. the Pro10s? Is the gamut wider for all colors or just one ? And how much ? How do the OEM profiles compare ?

 

[stratman]

Excellent comments and questions.

Would be nice if Canon - someone - would donate/lend a Pro-300 to one of our esteemed forum members for an in-depth performance review.

Maybe mikling and Jose can secure one with his petty cash on hand for a podcast.

 

[palombian]

One thing that no one has caught onto as yet is that the Pro-10 has a CO control dialog that is superior to that of the Pro-1000. Perhaps Canon discovered this was too complicated for the vast majority of users. In the Pro-1000. There is only an Auto or Overall choice. In the Pro-10 there is a CUSTOM. This is where you must use form controls.
https://ugp01.c-ij.com/ij/webmanual/PrinterDriver/M/PRO-10S series/1.0/EN/PPG/dg-c_clearcoating.html

This aspect disappeared on the Pro-1000. Complicated, yes but once you figure it out, it is very flexible.

I tried this and it works as described (you "print" a mask that can be used afterwards to hold CO).
It is an all or none mask.
The only practical use I found is for suppressing use on the paper types where it is normally applied.

I could be wrong, do you have other uses in mind ?

 

[palombian]

There is something what I'm missing with all these printer tests/reports - for the P300 and many other reviews on the internet, the unit under test is a color printer, the manufacturers - Epson or Canon - claim gamut improvements, better black levels etc with every new model , but no review does dicsuss any detail of these colors - how much 'color' - saturation - do I get - how does this compare to the previous model - how does it compare to the competition - how much are the improvements - just measurable or visible - how much difference does tlhe 'improved' black actually deliver - and all these claims just refer to one specific paper used in such announcement - but is such improvement visible as well on other papers which are typically used ? Camera reports go in much more technical detail - e.g. of the sensor - down to the electron yield of the photon wells but I don't see anything at all about the actual color performance of a printer in almost any review on the internet - with a very few exceptions - e.g. on luminous-landscape - but more comparing the gamut of papers than of printers. The P300 now comes with Lucia Pro inks - how much of a difference/improvement does this change deliver vs. the Pro10s? Is the gamut wider for all colors or just one ? And how much ? How do the OEM profiles compare ?

As far as I can deduce from Aardenburg the gamut of "Lucia PRO" should be better than the previous large format ink "Lucia EX" (not the same as PRO-1/PRO-10 called Lucia 10 sometimes).
But the longevity is not so good.
Some suggest Cannon added dyes to the pigments.

The better matte black of the PRO-300 could be - at least partially - done by using other colours as cyan.
According to @mikling the same thing seems to happen when you make custom profiles, it should be made visible by printing without black in the cart.
I didn't try this yet since I don't know how to do this without destroying the printhead.

It is also possible the ink load for standard matte is enhanced in the PRO-300.
If the video compares with the black of the PRO-10 standard matte settings this is understandable, it is rather dull.
Anyway, meaured black levels on matte papers are much higher than on glossy (you need good ink and paper to go under L=20 on matte, while on glossy you can go under L=2.

 

[mikling]

I tried this and it works as described (you "print" a mask that can be used afterwards to hold CO).
It is an all or none mask.
The only practical use I found is for suppressing use on the paper types where it is normally applied.

I could be wrong, do you have other uses in mind ?

Let's start with a secret Watermark! in a corner. Pop a mask in and you have a secret mark in a little spot.
That is one. The issue of Co on the edges or not is another. Basically, you can have control over it all combined. It is tedious but it is more controllable than the Pro-300 and it also addresses the limitations of how and where it can be applied. So in essence you have total control and more than the new printers.

 

[mikling]

Excellent comments and questions.

Would be nice if Canon - someone - would donate/lend a Pro-300 to one of our esteemed forum members for an in-depth performance review.

Maybe mikling and Jose can secure one with his petty cash on hand for a podcast.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/young-c...dy-trudeau-for-cerb-spending-sprees-1.1469011

Sorry, I did not receive ANY funds from Daddy T. Worse I'm expected to pay for these people buying designer stuff courtesy Daddy T.

 

[The Hat]

it should be made visible by printing without black in the cart.

The Pro 10 and also the pro 9500 are unique in that you can replace the black or any of the colours in your carts with CO very easily, that way you can see where and when the printer is using these inks in the average photo..

 

[stratman]

I did not receive ANY funds from Daddy T.

No bling for mikling.

Time to get out the tin cup for donations and pass the Dutchie 'pon the left hand side.

PS Can't understand what is sung sometimes? Even my The Hat Decoder Ring cannot translate. It's WWII Navajo Code Talker level encryption!