Canon Pixma iP5000 vs. Canon i960 vs. Epson R300

[ejwebb]

My s820 print head died last night and rather than spend $80 on a new head I am inclined to spend $120 on an i960 which is only $40 more and includes $75 worth of ink!

However, I noticed that the Pixma ip5000 is out and available for $190 and wondered if anyone has experience with it and how it compares to the i960. I understand it uses only 5 inks but has a 1 picoliter droplet compared to 2 for higher resolution - sounds good but worth the $70 price difference?

Any thoughts are appreciated.

EDIT!! Amazon's price went back up to $169 overnight...errrrrggggg!! The lowest price I can find at a trusted store was $150 for the i960. However, I found the Pixma iP5000 at NewEgg for $184 shipped which seems like the better way to go if the quality really is better. Anyway - still apreciate your thoughts!

EDIT AGAIN!! Now I have noticed the Epson R300 for $160 at NewEgg minus a $30 rebate. How does this one stack up to the Canons?? I'm so confused...

[C399]

I'm a newbie here so my opinion probably means less than crap. But I just picked up the ip5000 and i'm pretty stunned by the output. Don't think you can go wrong buying it.

[greggerm]

Wow - Old thread!

Chances are the original poster has already purchased a new printer. But I'll reply anyway for those who enjoy the search function.

I firstly would personally avoid the Epsons. Although the R800 (their top-shelf inkjet) produces some absolutely amazing and archival output, they are pricy and not to frugal with the ink. Also, due to their printhead design, some people have run into the heads clogging. Unclogging them uses ink, further placing a drain on the cost per page. Unless you are going to use the printer for photos everyday (to keep the heads unclogged), I'd look at other options.

The Canon i960 is most likely off the market at this point, replaced by the Pixma iP4000. This printer uses a 6-cartridge system when printing photos, with a 2 pL drop size. Many users have been quite impressed with the iP4000 - but after reading many reviews myself, I came to the conclusion that more ink is not always the answer.

I purchased a iP5000 for myself a month or so ago. The printer has the same paper handling options as the iP4000 (paper tray plus rear paper feeder, duplexing..) But uses a different ink configuration and printhead. It uses 4 colors when printing photos, and an independant, dedicated black pigmented ink for printing black and white text. Both modes use a small 1 pL drop size. When testing for my purchase, I looked at both the 4000 and the 5000. Image output, to my eye, was at least equal, but something about the 5000's output looked better to me.

The smaller drop size allows canon to keep the same color range, while eliminating the "Photo Cyan" and "Photo Magenta" inks. This is quite significant becuase it reduces your total cost of ownership as it relates to ink.

These days, it's hard to go wrong with a photo printer. The Canon iP4000, ip5000, and the equivilant Epsons will all produce excellent quality results. For me, the Canon iP5000's ink costs (and PRINTER cost!) made it the best buy for my needs! Will it match yours? Only you can tell. But it won't be lacking in the quality department, that is for certain!

-Greg Germ

[joroma]

The Epson R200 or R300 will give better quality photos than the Canon Pixma ip4000. I have printed the same photo off both printers at 5 x 7 and I can assure you the Epson was significantly better (better colours and better definition). The Canon is better for text and has more gizmos and looks different.

I don't think the ip5000 uses different inks to the ip4000 so I doubt if that willl be as good as the Epson R200 or R300.

[KevC]

The Epson R200 or R300 will give better quality photos than the Canon Pixma ip4000. I have printed the same photo off both printers at 5 x 7 and I can assure you the Epson was significantly better (better colours and better definition). The Canon is better for text and has more gizmos and looks different.

I don't think the ip5000 uses different inks to the ip4000 so I doubt if that willl be as good as the Epson R200 or R300.

REALLY! That's interesting. I was almost about to buy the iP4000. Some things I've heard:

iP4000 is a better printer than iP5000. (for photos)

R200 and R300 are the same printer, just R300 has extra stuff like the card reader and USB2.0

That said, I'm gonna buy meself a R200 :D

[kb244]

You could more or less compare the iP4000 with the R300 instead, seems the iP5000 despite double resolution doesnt do too much for sharpness. It uses the same exact inks and everything just smaller nozzles.

Though I disagree that the canon better for text etc. hehe the iP4000 and R300 are very comparible, but the canon going to print faster, and often times more vivid photos, though the epson usally by default has increased contrast setup for the photo printing, but can work better in the areas of darker tones.

I've printed photos out on both the iP4000 and R300 , they were extremely close in quality and color, only difference was the R300 was tad darker in the shadow areas and such.

[joroma]

I've printed photos out on both the iP4000 and R300 , they were extremely close in quality and color, only difference was the R300 was tad darker in the shadow areas and such.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to disagree but the difference between the R300 (which is the same as the R200 but it has a built in card reader and is USB2) and the Canon ip4000 was, for photos, very apparent. The range of colours was not as good on the Canon with skin tones flat. Even at 5 x 7 you could see the individual ink droplets with a magnifying glass. They were much less noticeable on the Epson print.

[Zaphod]

I've printed photos out on both the iP4000 and R300 , they were extremely close in quality and color, only difference was the R300 was tad darker in the shadow areas and such.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry to disagree but the difference between the R300 (which is the same as the R200 but it has a built in card reader and is USB2) and the Canon ip4000 was, for photos, very apparent. The range of colours was not as good on the Canon with skin tones flat. Even at 5 x 7 you could see the individual ink droplets with a magnifying glass. They were much less noticeable on the Epson print.

Maybe the r200 and 300 have good image qualities .. My experience with the 200 is EXTREMELY high cost of running and it now needs a service after 6 months .. it has cost me much much much more in ink than I paid for it and the software is awful

just my 2 cents

[C.S.I.]

I have the i960 at home......quality is stunning....


Recently bought the IP5000 for work (only because i960 is no more), and am very pleased with the performance....print quality is the same from 4 inks as opposed to 6 (on the i960).

....Someone advised me that the IP5000 was the replacement for the i960....