My first Canon, very satisfied. Switching over from Epson
Written: Jul 29 '03
|
Product Rating:
|
|
| Ease of Use: |
 |
|
| Paper Handling: |
|
|
|
Pros: Fast, outstanding image quality, low maintenance(ink) cost
Cons: You pay more for wide carriage, only uses USB
The Bottom Line: Look at the rest first. Analyze their merits. Then end up with the Canon.
|
|
|
| gerardc6's Full Review: Canon i 9100 Inkjet Printer |
Canon i9100
07/25/2003
Relative to today, the Canon i9100 is a recently released wide-carriage printer. It succeeds the Canon S9000. Besides my new Canon, the only other printer I’ve owned is an Epson Stylus Pro, which broke the 720dpi barrier, and an Epson LQ570 (24-pin dot-matrix).
PREPURCHASE RESEARCH
Candidates
During my research process, I looked at the Canon i9100, Epson Stylus Photo 2200, and the HP CP1700. All are the latest wide-carriage model from each company. The Canon uses six individual ink cartridges, while the Epson uses seven individual ink cartridges, and the HP uses four individual cartridges. All were available for me to see and purchase.
Both Epson and HP units had reviews available online. The Canon i9100 did not have a review. So, I looked instead at the S9000, and the i950. The i950 is a narrow-carriage printer that uses the same set of ink cartridges as the S9000 and the i9100. It also prints up to the resolution of the i9100.
Ink Costs
One of the things I was looking for in a printer was a low maintenance cost. Nowadays, printer companies seem to be practically giving away their printers and making up for it on ink costs. In terms of cost per cartridge, the HP is the clearest loser. When it comes time to replace all the ink cartridges, each HP cartridge hovers in the low-to-mid-$30s. The Epson comes in next, with the Canon having the lowest cost per cartridge. Of course with such a comparison, the assumption is that ink volume in the cartridges are essentially identical or at least close, to simplify the cost calculation. With cost, the HP had to leave the race.
Being that the comparison is brought down to the Canon and the Epson, it was time to look at other things. This was a little hard to do as it was not a matter of matching apples with apples.
One of the things that threw off the comparison was the difference in the number of ink cartridges. The Epson has a Light Gray cartridge. This I’ve read is used for making areas that use gray. Instead of mixing colors, the Epson would just use the Light Gray ink, allegedly leading to a more pure output. Reading through the reviews, I read one that said it’s prone to Bronzing, while another said it doesn’t have that (undesirable) side-effect. Perhaps it depends on what it’s printing. For making B&W prints, the Epson might have a slight edge (I suggest reading more reviews).
The other aspect that threw me off was that they used different types of ink. The Canon uses dye-based ink, while the Epson uses pigment-based ink. The former I’ve read performs better, while the latter lasts longer. Knowing hardly anything about how they are really different, I relied upon each manufacturer’s claims. Canon claims their ink will not fade for 25 years, while Epson claims theirs will not fade for 80-100 years. Now it’s quite possible each of their claims are pretty valid. Still, it’s quite possible that they were tested under different conditions and measurements were made differently. So take them as they are, with a grain of salt. It would’ve been better to find test results by one company, subjecting each to identical conditions. In this criterion, the Epson has an edge.
One of the issues I’ve read about in reviews is the selection of paper available. The Epson appears to have more available to consumers, going all the way up to 13x44. In this respect, the Epson still has the advantage.
Connectivity is a factor to consider. Which one has more ways of connecting the unit to a computer? The Canon uses USB as its only connectivity medium. The Epson has USB, FireWire, and Parallel Port. I sure wish the Canon had FireWire. In this respect the Epson wins again.
Output quality is of course very important in making a decision. According to the reviews I’ve read, output from both the Epson and Canon units have bands. But the Epson’s is more pronounced. I looked at sample output of the Epson at retailers and true enough it’s more noticeable. When I looked at the Canon’s sample output, it was much better. To the naked eye, it’s difficult to detect the bands. Both used the best paper available.
I remember one reviewer commenting on the Canon’s tightness and predictability of dot arrangements. It’s quite a valid comment. The Canon’s output is definitely much better.
Speed is another factor. Which one takes half an hour and which one takes five minutes, to print a 13x19? It turns out the Epson is the slow one. Who would wait half an hour to print a less impressive 13x19?
Anyway, I decided to go for the Canon i9100. I wanted something that produces superior output at breakneck speed. I figure, with competition between the two, and third party producers, someone is bound to make more kinds of paper and better age-defying inks.
One more thing, I was struggling on deciding whether or not to purchase it from an online vendor or through a local retailer. I wanted to take it home with me so I bought it from a local store. The online vendors sell it for less though, but look up their reviews before handing over your credit card information to place an order.
POST-PURCHASE OBSERVATIONS
Relative to my narrow-carriage Epson Stylus Pro, the wide-carriage Canon i9100 takes up less footprint area overall. The output tray can be folded when not in use, reducing the footprint even more.
Installation is fairly simple. Plug in the power, and the USB cable. With the unit off, install the software. Then power it up, and that’s pretty much it. The software included are actually useful (Easy-PhotoPrint, Easy-PhotoPrint). Easy-PhotoPrint makes thumbnails out of pictures in a folder quickly. To print, just select the images, select paper size and type, and print. My old way of printing involves using Olympus Camedia Master, which came with my digital camera a few years ago. If you want to edit the images first, use a higher-end tool.
When printing a picture, let’s say a 4x6 borderless print, the shorter side is what goes to the bottom, kind of like a Portrait Orientation (as opposed to Landscape). For a 13x19, it’s logical to dictate that orientation because that’s how wide the printer can go. Perhaps they wanted to simplify the software’s design? Anyway, it has a nice side-effect for Landscape-oriented photos. The very tiny bands go from top-to-bottom, not left-to-right. It appears harder to detect that way.
Unlike other print drivers, when you hit print on this printer, you don’t get a print monitor window popping out in your lower-right corner, something that can be annoying sometimes. I you want to see it, just double-click on its icon in the System Tray (MS Windows)
Print speed is very nice. When printing a 13x19 using Easy-PhotoPrint, from the moment I pressed OK (to initiate and formulate print data) to the time the paper gets dropped onto the output tray, took around 5:36 (minutes:seconds). Within that time, from the moment paper gets loaded to the time it gets dropped into the output tray takes around 5:02 (minutes:seconds). Calculating print area to be 247 square inches on a 13x19, the speed, in terms of square inches printed per second is around 0.82 sq. in./second.
Another amazing aspect about the i9100 is its ink consumption. At a screen resolution of 1280x1024, the bars representing how much ink is left, is around 33 pixels high. Roughly, each pixel would represent a little over 3% of total capacity. The assumption here is that it reports accurately and that it detects changes linearly(one pixel drop at a time). Calculating the total surface area of all I’ve printed so far, and dividing it by the perceived ink consumption (as reported by the Print Monitor software), I get around 6/10 of one cent. That’s $0.006 per square inch of printed surface. To factor in the time it takes for ink in the cartridges to completely settle down its natural level (which may have skewed the readings), I took a reading at the end of the night, and checked it again the following morning, no change. If that figure changes, I will be sure to make an update.
At that rate, the cost of ink for a 4x6 would be $0.145, 8.5x11 - $0.564, 13x19 – $1.49. It’s cheap, but for having digital prints made, factoring in the cost of paper and the printer’s depreciation cost, makes it more expensive than dropping it off at a photo developer.
A big aspect affecting print quality is paper. Even while doing darkroom work, I’ve always been a big fan of Matte surfaces over Glossy. So I got a Soft Gloss Kodak Picture Paper(4x6). It was cheap and not the highest-end paper Kodak makes. Also, since it is said to yield the best output quality, I purchased a pack of (glossy) Canon Photo Paper Pro in 4x6 and 13x19 (I didn’t find any Matte Canon paper at the store so I bought what I could). The Canon Photo Paper Pro looks much better, so paper quality does make a difference. Keep in mind, as I said earlier, the Kodak one I used is not their highest-end paper. Later I will test it against Kodak’s highest end paper, the Kodak Ultima Picture Paper. For now, know that going cheap on paper will result in cheaper looking output.
***An Important Note: my pack of 13x19 had a slight crumple in one of the corners of its packaging. It turns out the crumple propagated and partially damaged (crumpled) a small part of the photo paper. It’s very important you get one that has a perfect package. The paper has to lay flat when being printed on, and there’s not much clearance between the print head and the paper’s surface, so a slight crumple ends up touching the head. For a $500 printer, I think it’s worth taking the time examining the paper’s packaging for any mishandling and picking the one in the most perfect condition.
***Another Important Note: the i9100 has an easily replaceable Print Head for those inopportune moments. No need to throw away the whole printer, just flip a lever, take out the damaged head, put in the new head, and flip the level back.
PRINTER IMPROVEMENTS
This is a tough one. Perhaps more varieties in paper, and ink that ages longer. FireWire would be nice as well.
IMPROVING IMAGE QUALITY
With print quality being excellent, the biggest limiting factor when printing digital pictures would be the camera being used. My 2.0 megapixel Olympus C-2020’s output is great for a borderless 4x6. I have yet to test it on a borderless 8.5x11 print. As a 13x19 print though, it looks great from afar. A closer look starts to show a slight deficiency in detail, something I think more megapixels will help. So, it’s not the printer that’s the limiting factor, it’s the camera. Also, I’d suggest lowering the camera’s image compression setting (switch image quality to highest), because signs of image compression are easy to see on a big 13x19 print.
So there you go, my honest opinion. Enjoy.
Gerard
Recommended:
Yes
Amount Paid (US$): 499
Operating System: Windows
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
gerardc6
|
|
Reviews written: 1
Trusted by: 0 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.