| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2003 10:43:18 AM · #1 |
Anybody has an argument in favor of one or the other besides large format for the i9100 (and price)?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 10:50:12 AM · #2 |
One other difference I noted from the spec sheet is that the droplet size on the i950 is 2 picolitres whereas the droplet size on the i9100 is 4. To me this means finer detail could be achieved on the i950.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 10:52:06 AM · #3 |
Nope; though I can say that I bought the i9100, and I am very very happy with it. Print quality is excellent, and best results are achieved if you use the Canon Photo Paper Pro paper (I've tried the Canon Glossy Photo Paper, Kodak Premium Picture Paper (satin or glossy) and Epson Matte Heavyweight, and of all of them, I like the Photo Paper Pro the best).
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 11:00:41 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by mcrael:
Nope; though I can say that I bought the i9100, and I am very very happy with it. Print quality is excellent, and best results are achieved if you use the Canon Photo Paper Pro paper (I've tried the Canon Glossy Photo Paper, Kodak Premium Picture Paper (satin or glossy) and Epson Matte Heavyweight, and of all of them, I like the Photo Paper Pro the best). |
when you say "Nope" do you refer to the assumption of cpanioti that 9100 will have a lesser resultion? I also was told it was not true. I was told it was the same printer but 9100 can do larger prints.
Thanks for the tip on paper. Is the Pro Glossy or Matte?
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 11:11:19 AM · #5 |
I have the Canon i950 and absolutely love it. The quality is amazing. I agree with the statement that it works best with Canon Photo Pro Paper.
I went with the i950 because I thought I would order the larger prints on-line (DPCPrints.com) for better quality. Guess what ... the quality is amazing, so I could have gotten the i9100. Either way, they're both great printers. I did my research before purchasing it ... and it is very, very well rated. I print a lot of my photos on pre-cut 4x6 photo sheets and put them in an album. It does a great job with borderless printing. It's fun to be able to print a 4x6 in 35 seconds. It prints my 8x10s in less than a minute.
Happy shopping.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 11:11:56 AM · #6 |
"Nope" meant that I don't have an argument in favor of i950 or i9100 other than the large format and price issues. cpanaioti's reply was posted while I was writing mine.
The Photo Paper Pro is glossy - very glossy. The prints look like they are straight from a photo processing lab.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 11:14:47 AM · #7 |
Oh - and by the way - I'm selling my matted prints at craft shows now, and people are very very impressed when I tell them that they are digital prints. Note: quality from the camera really helps too.
Message edited by author 2003-08-12 11:15:16.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 11:41:44 AM · #8 |
You probably won't notice a difference between a print made with a 2 picolitre droplet and one with a 4 picolitre droplet unless you use a loupe to examine your prints (if then). I'm not that picky (yet).
Steve's Digicams has reviewed both these printers and highly recommends either one.
Message edited by author 2003-08-12 11:42:23. |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 03:13:53 PM · #9 |
Thanks to all for all your commdents, I found them really hopeful. Still am not decided if I won't let me be seduced by the large size the i9100 can do or will go for the i950 for half price...
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 03:54:23 PM · #10 |
If you don't plan on selling prints, I'd go with the i950. You can get large prints done on-line or a local print shop. However, for a few more $$$, you can have the bragging rights of being able to print borderless 13-19 prints.
|
|
|
|
08/12/2003 05:08:23 PM · #11 |
| HP's latest consumer printer now has 8 ink tank with 2 grey scale. Guess we can expect to see that in Canon in a year or two. I love my Canon i950, it really does do nice prints, but can see where having dedicated grey scale inks would help especially for the b&w photos. |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 06:21:34 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by mcrael:
Oh - and by the way - I'm selling my matted prints at craft shows now, and people are very very impressed when I tell them that they are digital prints. |
Do you tell people that the prints they are buying will fade at some point in the future? (Sometimes in the "very near future", if displayed under certain conditions.) If you do, how do they react? If not, are you at all concerned about this issue?
I've always been leary of providing home-made prints to anybody I don't know because of the fade problem. I'm considering an Epson 2200 because of the pigment-based inks it uses (26 years on Epson Velvet Fine Art Paper under normal house lighting conditions direct-from-printer; extendable to 115 years with the addition of brush-on clearcoat.) In the mean time, I'm using the local Sam's Club Fuji Frontier, which has a rating of 65 years. Unfortunately, your only choice of paper is Fuji CrystalArchive matte paper.
Compare those numbers to the Canon S9000 on Canon Photo Paper Pro at 2 years, or the Canon i950 with Canon inks on Ilford Galerie Smooth Gloss at 5.7 years.
See the in-depth daylight test results for many printers here. (Note the statement at the top about fluorescent lighting and how it is not a good test setup. Other test results are available here.)
Message edited by author 2003-08-12 18:30:13. |
|
|
|
08/12/2003 06:30:47 PM · #13 |
Don`t forget to save for a new canon print head every few months if you print alot.
|
|
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: 09/08/2025 05:52:25 PM EDT.
