| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2004 10:50:39 PM · #26 |
Actually, in the most recent edition of PC Magazine, they just had a huge test on printers, and guess which one was an Editor's Choice?
The i9900.
Here's the specs. My apologies if some of these have already been posted:
Price (retail): $500
Size: 7.2"x22.7"x13.2"
Weight: 21.0 lbs
Duplexer: No
Rated speed, draft mode: mono/color (ppm): 16/12
Highest text/color resolution: 2,400x4,800
Direct connect ports: FireWire, USB 1.1, USB 2.0
Wireless Connections: None
Minimum/maximum paper size: 4"x6"/13"x19"
Input/output tray capacity (sheets): 150/100
Number of ink cartridges/ink colors: 8/8
Stops printing if one color runs out: Yes
Cost per black cartridge: $7
Cost per individual color cartridge: $12
Claimed cost per monochrome page: 1.6 cents
Claimed cost per color page: N/A
EXIF 2.2-/PIM-complaint: Yes/No
Direct printing from memory cards/PictBridge cameras: No/Yes
Preview Screen: No
Network Ports: None
No server OS support of any kind
Thumbnail/booklet/watermark printing: No/Yes (Windows Only)/No
Print Times:
-Adobe Acrobat 6.0 - 4 pages text and photos
-Portrait: 2:13
-Landscape: 2:07
-Microsoft Excel 2003
-1 page table A with grid: 0:24
-1 page table A without grid: 0:23
-1 page table B with background tints: 0:31
-1 page graph: 1:46
-3 pages graphs and charts: 1:42
-Microsoft PowerPoint 2003
-4 full-page slides: 5:14
-Microsoft Word 2003
-2 pages text: 0:55
-2 pages text and clipart: 0:56
-2 pages text and photos: 0:55
-12 pages monochrome text: 4:02
-12 pages color text: 4:11
TOTAL OUTPUT TIME: 25:19
-Adobe Photoshop 7 - Photos (high-quality settings)
-4x6 prints: 1:31 (fastest tested)
-8x10 prints: 3:14 (fastest tested)
Review:
"For fast high-quality photos up to 13 by 19 inches and general-purpose capabilities, the Canon i9900 is the way to go. The i9900 has just two front-panel buttons and the PictBridge port - no memory card slots. It used eight ink colors, with a separate cartridge for each, adding red and green to the six colors photo printers typically have.
"These extra inks pay off in a wide color gamut and true photo quality. Iext also rates as excellent, with more than half of our test fonts easily readable at 4 points using default settings. Graphics in default mode showed only minor flaws. Photo speed was even more impressive, at 30 seconds for each 4-by-6 photo and 1 minute 5 seconds for each 8-by-10.
"On the business applications tests, the i9900 was less impressive. Its total for the suite was 25:19 - far closer to the slowest photo printer in the group, at 29:53, than the fastest, at 15:48."
The only other Editors Choice from this test was the Canon Pixma iP4000, with the 15:48 suite speed, good overall quality, and a far less expensive $150 price tag. Once again, it's all about preference and budget level.
- Kraahkan -
|
|
|
|
11/10/2004 11:12:35 PM · #27 |
Again I will say that the i9900 would be perfect if only Canon could conquer the longevity problem. Of course, I'm only talking about people who have intentions of selling prints; for home users or proofing it's not an issue. However, it seems that we have to make a choice between wider color gamut and archivability.
I dunno, maybe I'm crazy but I think that as sellers of printed images, we have a responsibility to uphold a certain standard. If the market becomes saturated with prints that are only expected to last a few years, who's to say that we're not shooting ourselves in the foot? Why would anyone other than a die-hard collector pay more than $20 or $30 dollars for a print vs. several hundred for an archival print? Artists who strive to provide such archivable prints will have to lower their prices in order to compete and that will drive down profits for everyone involved. Just my thoughts - like I said, I could be crazy!
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 12:22:10 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
Again I will say that the i9900 would be perfect if only Canon could conquer the longevity problem. Of course, I'm only talking about people who have intentions of selling prints; for home users or proofing it's not an issue. However, it seems that we have to make a choice between wider color gamut and archivability.
I dunno, maybe I'm crazy but I think that as sellers of printed images, we have a responsibility to uphold a certain standard. If the market becomes saturated with prints that are only expected to last a few years, who's to say that we're not shooting ourselves in the foot? Why would anyone other than a die-hard collector pay more than $20 or $30 dollars for a print vs. several hundred for an archival print? Artists who strive to provide such archivable prints will have to lower their prices in order to compete and that will drive down profits for everyone involved. Just my thoughts - like I said, I could be crazy! |
I used to work on the epson 2200 for the last two years, untill two days ago. As for the "lightfast" rating. I have had photos fade in under 6 months on the 2200 with epson paper sitting on my desk. I just started a brutal fade test yesterday on the ap's fade rig between the i9900 and the 2200. Ten 500W household plant lights with high uv arcs at 3 ft, no glass, 24/7, the test closet is vented and runs at about 85ºF. It is just about 300 times normal light exposure for a print. Each day is a conservative year. I'll know in a week. Glass extends the life by 2 to 3 times. If the claim of 25 years is close then the i9900 will kill the 2200 in two weeks. I have had kodak prints fade in under 5 years behind class in a sun lit room, no direct light on the print, just bounce.
adam |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 05:41:44 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by ajschmidt:
Originally posted by hsteg:
can you put a roll of paper in there to print a panoramic? |
Although it is not supported by cannon, in fact you can use long roll paper. A couple of tips; unroll the paper first and let it sit for an hour to unroll, cut it to the length of the print + 2", set up a custom paper size, and make sure that you have at least 20% left on your inks. I have been known to print 8.5" x 120" prints on a i560. I will run a test on the i9900 and get back to you.
PS: life with the i9900 is so much more productive. I have run over 30 different papers today, and they all came out within 5% without custom settings or profiles up to 60lbs. I have run over 100 square feet and the ink tanks are still virtually full. I will write a full review in the next few days.
adam |
Can you confirm this? Canon told me it was limited in the firmware.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 05:49:23 AM · #30 |
Well, I have 9900 little brother, the 965, and I am very impressed by it's speed and quality. I will definetly consider Canon when I upgrade to A3 sized printer.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 06:35:28 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by ajschmidt:
Originally posted by digistoune:
Again I will say that the i9900 would be perfect if only Canon could conquer the longevity problem. Of course, I'm only talking about people who have intentions of selling prints; for home users or proofing it's not an issue. However, it seems that we have to make a choice between wider color gamut and archivability.
I dunno, maybe I'm crazy but I think that as sellers of printed images, we have a responsibility to uphold a certain standard. If the market becomes saturated with prints that are only expected to last a few years, who's to say that we're not shooting ourselves in the foot? Why would anyone other than a die-hard collector pay more than $20 or $30 dollars for a print vs. several hundred for an archival print? Artists who strive to provide such archivable prints will have to lower their prices in order to compete and that will drive down profits for everyone involved. Just my thoughts - like I said, I could be crazy! |
I used to work on the epson 2200 for the last two years, untill two days ago. As for the "lightfast" rating. I have had photos fade in under 6 months on the 2200 with epson paper sitting on my desk. I just started a brutal fade test yesterday on the ap's fade rig between the i9900 and the 2200. Ten 500W household plant lights with high uv arcs at 3 ft, no glass, 24/7, the test closet is vented and runs at about 85ºF. It is just about 300 times normal light exposure for a print. Each day is a conservative year. I'll know in a week. Glass extends the life by 2 to 3 times. If the claim of 25 years is close then the i9900 will kill the 2200 in two weeks. I have had kodak prints fade in under 5 years behind class in a sun lit room, no direct light on the print, just bounce.
adam |
It will be interesting to see what you come up with. I have been very happy with my 2200 and print life to me is very important. Please keep us informed on your findings.
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 09:30:05 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by TomH1000:
It will be interesting to see what you come up with. I have been very happy with my 2200 and print life to me is very important. Please keep us informed on your findings.
Thanks, |
Ditto!
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 12:17:11 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by terje:
Originally posted by ajschmidt:
Originally posted by hsteg:
can you put a roll of paper in there to print a panoramic? |
Although it is not supported by cannon, in fact you can use long roll paper. A couple of tips; unroll the paper first and let it sit for an hour to unroll, cut it to the length of the print + 2", set up a custom paper size, and make sure that you have at least 20% left on your inks. I have been known to print 8.5" x 120" prints on a i560. I will run a test on the i9900 and get back to you.
PS: life with the i9900 is so much more productive. I have run over 30 different papers today, and they all came out within 5% without custom settings or profiles up to 60lbs. I have run over 100 square feet and the ink tanks are still virtually full. I will write a full review in the next few days.
adam |
Can you confirm this? Canon told me it was limited in the firmware. |
Well, sad to say it but the i9900 will print by my measurements to 24". Using Epson 13" x 32" paper, proper settings in both mac os x and the printer driver, I was able to print to just a fraction of an inch shy of 24". I had more data to print, but the printer just shot out the paper at 24". It did finish the edge at 24" (no stair stepped, stopped in the middle stuff) but this is really sad. I used to do photography boarders for wall paper trim on the i560 over 200". Let me test this at the office on the rip and see what i come up with. As for the default drivers, 24" is the max. I'll have an answer around noon PST.
Adam
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 12:57:35 PM · #34 |
WOOOOOHOOOOO!!!! Just printed my first print ever.. With a brand new Canon i9950.. Used Canon Photo Paper Pro, and it looks unbelivable awesome.. I am so happy right now, I had *no* idea you could print taht kind of quality!!
*Terje does the happy dance!*
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 01:00:22 PM · #35 |
Just got in the door here and have interesting news from the art dept. Canon is beta testing a canon brand rip, hardware based that will print to every canon printer, and can rip to 8 printers at once over ethernet. This rip will remove the maximum area settings from all canon printers including the i9900. We are getting a few "beta" rips in two weeks. As it turns out Canon wants to make as much money as possible. So, until canon makes larger paper, the base drivers will not print bigger. Hence they will be marketing their own rip for the pro industry. Jason in Art thinks that the release date will me at MacWorld 2005 SF, and that the price will be just under $1000. I know that this is going to tick off a lot of users, but I come from the pro world, and we have to send image setting data to presses around the world. Rips are a way of life.
Sorry,
adam |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 01:03:13 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by terje:
WOOOOOHOOOOO!!!! Just printed my first print ever.. With a brand new Canon i9950.. Used Canon Photo Paper Pro, and it looks unbelivable awesome.. I am so happy right now, I had *no* idea you could print taht kind of quality!!
*Terje does the happy dance!* |
Mac or Pc? Settings? Lets get some input from other users.
Adam |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 04:03:27 PM · #37 |
| Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but what is "rip"? |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 04:16:55 PM · #38 |
| I've also been a Epson Disciple... but regular clogging and wasting 1/10th of my ink load to clean them every time is really pushing me to try something new. I'm just so used to Epson papers!! |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 05:07:34 PM · #39 |
PC, I've printed A3's and A4's all night. :-)
|
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:50:11 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by lhall:
Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but what is "rip"? |
You can sort of get an idea from this link. |
|
|
|
11/11/2004 10:51:13 PM · #41 |
The i9900 is a god walking amongst men...
This is all.
|
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:14:39 AM · #42 |
| I have happily used an Epson 200p for several years with some satisfaction and salon acceptances. However I saw the stats on the Canon 9900 and bought it. It is amazing. I use it with a mac and the print speed and quality are supurb. |
|
|
|
11/12/2004 10:32:09 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by lhall:
Pardon my ignorance on the subject, but what is "rip"? |
You can sort of get an idea from this link. |
Thank you so much for the link; the article was very "understandable", and I now have a fairly clear picture of "rip".
Before posting the question, I did do a google search, and could find lots of references to "RIP", I couldn't find a "definition", so thank you for taking the time to post that. |
|
|
|
12/02/2004 12:07:11 PM · #44 |
Hey, did the fading test ever get finished on the i9900 prints? Did anyone ever hear? Maybe they are not done yet... Thanks for any info!
Doug
|
|
|
|
12/02/2004 12:15:51 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by dswebb:
Hey, did the fading test ever get finished on the i9900 prints? Did anyone ever hear? Maybe they are not done yet... Thanks for any info! |
I'd like to know as well--Thanks for bumping this. If the tester doesn't reply, maybe one of us can shoot him an email.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2004 01:48:13 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Zal:
Originally posted by dswebb:
Hey, did the fading test ever get finished on the i9900 prints? Did anyone ever hear? Maybe they are not done yet... Thanks for any info! |
I'd like to know as well--Thanks for bumping this. If the tester doesn't reply, maybe one of us can shoot him an email. |
Here are some reviews:
From Steve's Digicams
From Imaging Resource
From Digital eye
|
|
|
|
12/02/2004 05:23:23 PM · #47 |
| Hi, everyone, I've had this printer pretty much since it came out and have nothing but fantastic results. Just wanted to let ya's know that you can get excellent prints with ilford galerie smooth pearl paper. I've found Ilford to be less expensive and as good if not better the canon photo pro. Try an Ilford sampler and try it I think you'll be surprised. Have a good |
|
|
|
12/02/2004 06:10:48 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by terje:
Originally posted by ajschmidt:
Originally posted by hsteg:
can you put a roll of paper in there to print a panoramic? |
Although it is not supported by cannon, in fact you can use long roll paper. A couple of tips; unroll the paper first and let it sit for an hour to unroll, cut it to the length of the print + 2", set up a custom paper size, and make sure that you have at least 20% left on your inks. I have been known to print 8.5" x 120" prints on a i560. I will run a test on the i9900 and get back to you.
PS: life with the i9900 is so much more productive. I have run over 30 different papers today, and they all came out within 5% without custom settings or profiles up to 60lbs. I have run over 100 square feet and the ink tanks are still virtually full. I will write a full review in the next few days.
adam |
Can you confirm this? Canon told me it was limited in the firmware. |
I'm still waiting to find out about this issue before buying. Does anyone know for sure if this printer will print rolls, or longer than 19 inches?? |
|
|
|
12/03/2004 12:27:27 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by lhall:
Originally posted by terje:
Originally posted by ajschmidt:
Originally posted by hsteg:
can you put a roll of paper in there to print a panoramic? |
Although it is not supported by cannon, in fact you can use long roll paper. A couple of tips; unroll the paper first and let it sit for an hour to unroll, cut it to the length of the print + 2", set up a custom paper size, and make sure that you have at least 20% left on your inks. I have been known to print 8.5" x 120" prints on a i560. I will run a test on the i9900 and get back to you.
PS: life with the i9900 is so much more productive. I have run over 30 different papers today, and they all came out within 5% without custom settings or profiles up to 60lbs. I have run over 100 square feet and the ink tanks are still virtually full. I will write a full review in the next few days.
adam |
Can you confirm this? Canon told me it was limited in the firmware. |
I'm still waiting to find out about this issue before buying. Does anyone know for sure if this printer will print rolls, or longer than 19 inches?? |
I think he posted his answer - see 11/11 poste above (pasted here for your convenience):
Well, sad to say it but the i9900 will print by my measurements to 24". Using Epson 13" x 32" paper, proper settings in both mac os x and the printer driver, I was able to print to just a fraction of an inch shy of 24". I had more data to print, but the printer just shot out the paper at 24". It did finish the edge at 24" (no stair stepped, stopped in the middle stuff) but this is really sad. I used to do photography boarders for wall paper trim on the i560 over 200". Let me test this at the office on the rip and see what i come up with. As for the default drivers, 24" is the max. I'll have an answer around noon PST.
|
|
|
|
12/12/2004 02:47:52 PM · #50 |
Got my Canon i9900 today, amazingly easy to set up on my Mac, and boy is it ever fast, I did a test print of a 4x6 and it spit out a photo in just a few seconds. Amazing print quality, you cannot make out the difference between it's output and a chemical process photo, in fact it seems even better, crisper results. Highly recommended. :D
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/24/2025 05:16:56 AM EDT.
