Anyone Using a Canon i9900 Printer?

Panasonic Lumix 20mm f1.7 ASPH

07/19/2004 11:02:20 AM · #1

I'm looking seriously at this new Canon i9900 printer. I have read a few reviews on it and it looks promising. The only thing I have seen that I don't care for is that it only supports the Canon papers. Is anyone using this printer and can you give me any feedback on it?

bdshort

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2

07/19/2004 11:23:17 AM · #2

Sorry, don't know anything about the printer, but don't most printer manufacturers say that their printer is only designed for their paper, just to try and get you to send them more $$?

Brian

ps - What does your sig mean?

Message edited by author 2004-07-19 11:28:34.

cpanaioti

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

07/19/2004 11:29:18 AM · #3

I have a Canon i950 and use non-Canon papers occasionally. You just have to get the profile right to get what you want.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/19/2004 11:39:42 AM · #4

I use a Canon s900- the same printer series and BCI-6 inks. I've used Epson Glossy Photo paper almost exclusively on that printer for years (mostly because it's cheap at Costco). The prints look great, and I've never had a problem with the printer.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II

07/19/2004 11:56:47 AM · #5

I generally use epson papers as well, but some of the reviews I have read on this i9900 specifically state that using non canon papers yield poor results...

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

07/19/2004 12:17:49 PM · #6

I've found with the various printers I've had that using off brand papers, without the correct settings/ profiles can lead to wildly different results to what you'd expect. Particularly nasty was using HP glossy paper with Epson dye inks.

The manufacturers certainly formulate the ink sets to work with particular papers and you'll get increasingly odder results if you use paper stock that hasn't been developed with the particular inks in mind. Some third party paper makers design their papers to match certain ink types and those can work well (illford etc) but you need to get the settings right.

I've always found I get far superior and accurate results using the manufacturer brand with their own ink sets - but I usually can't be bothered wasting enough paper and ink to dial in a third party option.

davidbedard

Canon EOS-70D

07/19/2004 12:27:20 PM · #7

I use a Canon i960 and use Kodak paper (price!) exlusively for 4X6 prints with very good results. I've only used Canon paper for larger prints so I don't have any comparisons to make there.

07/19/2004 04:18:17 PM · #8

I went down to Best Buy and it seems that they don't carry any large format printers in my local store. I'll go take a look at Office Depot and see what they have to offer.

My dad has a Canon i900 (I think thats the model) and it makes beautiful prints. I'm just hoping that the i9900 will be as nice or nicer with the expanded ink system. I'm quite interested in the 13x19 borderless prints as well.

When I had my HP 1220c, I had trouble finding 13x19 paper locally and I'm concerned that I'll have to mail order my paper for about anything I buy in this size range.

As for 4x6 prints, I have resorted 100% to letting my local 1hr lab print them for me. I can't print them anywhere near the price I can buy them for. I pay $0.29 for the first 25 and $0.25 each after that. The print quality is excellent and I doubt I could print them any better myself. I simply burn a CD with the photos I want whenever I'm ready to print and drop them off.... great results.

07/19/2004 04:43:54 PM · #9

I was looking at this printer too, but I want a printer that can do photos and generic documents with color, without wasting extra $$ on ink. I want to use ink efficiently, not waste $$.

Is this printer one that is great for both photos and documents (word, excel, print shop, etc)? Or is it a waste of money to print documents with the ink used here?

fsteddy

07/19/2004 04:44:52 PM · #10

//www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml;jsessionid=CIPRF41W5KS5LQHIO3JXWJI?pq-path=1964&PRINTER=Canon+i9900&pq-locale=en_US&_requestid=32285
This link is for settings for Kodak paper for most any printer. I have had geat success with Ultima Picture Paper. I am printing on an Epson printer. I guess this is just for the Canon i9900.

Message edited by author 2004-07-19 16:46:08.

LindaLee

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/19/2004 04:52:32 PM · #11

John, Wolf Camera nearly always carries the 13x19 Ilford paper.

@mirdonamy: My husband and I long ago decided it was worth our while to have more than one printer. When we upgraded to the HP 1220, we kept the old one (1120) to do all the "office" work. This has really worked out well for us. I do a lot of "odd" types of printing, so have stuck with the wide format printers, and love them.

LindaLee

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/19/2004 04:59:15 PM · #12

I'm curious as to how the i9900 compares to the HP2200. HP claims 90 yr lightfastness, I cannot find anywhere that Canon makes any claims to lightfast.

Anyone had the chance to compare the two?

tfaust

Canon EOS 80D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/19/2004 05:25:23 PM · #13

I've been really eyeballing that new Canon i9900 and it's still on my list. Right now I use the new Canon i80 portable printer while onsite and it works great, so I can only imagine how the i9900 will be with an expanded ink system and better quality due to the difference in picolitres. I use Canon paper exclusively with the i80 printer after a pretty extensive conversation with a Canon rep.

As far as getting a printer for photo and text... I gave up on that. I now have printers just for business type printing (text, flyers, newsletters, etc) and a seperate printer just for photos.

07/20/2004 12:41:50 PM · #14

Originally posted by lhall:

@mirdonamy: My husband and I long ago decided it was worth our while to have more than one printer. When we upgraded to the HP 1220, we kept the old one (1120) to do all the "office" work. This has really worked out well for us. I do a lot of "odd" types of printing, so have stuck with the wide format printers, and love them.

Maybe I am dreaming, but what I want to do is print documents as needed, greeting cards (from Print Shop) and CD Labels. But, it would also be nice to print a photo here and there. So, my printer would be about 80% office, labels, cards and 20% photos. I hate to get a separate printer just to print a photo every other week. So, what's a girl to do? Any suggestions for 1 printer? We don't really have room for two printers in our small apartment, sadly...

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

07/20/2004 04:34:17 PM · #15

Originally posted by mirdonamy:

Originally posted by lhall:
@mirdonamy: My husband and I long ago decided it was worth our while to have more than one printer. When we upgraded to the HP 1220, we kept the old one (1120) to do all the "office" work. This has really worked out well for us. I do a lot of "odd" types of printing, so have stuck with the wide format printers, and love them.

Maybe I am dreaming, but what I want to do is print documents as needed, greeting cards (from Print Shop) and CD Labels. But, it would also be nice to print a photo here and there. So, my printer would be about 80% office, labels, cards and 20% photos. I hate to get a separate printer just to print a photo every other week. So, what's a girl to do? Any suggestions for 1 printer? We don't really have room for two printers in our small apartment, sadly...

Epson R800 is a rather fast 'office' printer, (it kinda scared me how quickly the paper flew through it in 'draft' mode), works well for labels, will even print directly on to a CD, does card stock well and is amazingly good for photos, handling glossy media (unlike the Epson 2200) doing great matte and lustre prints and having a 200+ year claimed archival lifetime.

It doesn't do larger than letter (other than long panoramas) and doesn't require an entire new table just to put it on. I general I've found it to be a great printer, and you can change each colour cartridge individually when one runs out, meaning you don't need to change and waste all the other colours. The ink is quite expensive though, as it is a pigment based system.

A good alternative is one of the lower end dye based Epson printers like the 820 or whatever the equivalent is now - the Epson Stylus Photo range. Great print quality, reasonably fast, cheapish inks.

Personally I have an R800 for photo work and an old HP 932C deskjet for day to day printing requirements. I'm possibly going to switch to using the R800 for everything fairly soon though as it is just so much faster.

digistoune

Canon EOS-20D

07/20/2004 04:49:09 PM · #16

Originally posted by lhall:

I'm curious as to how the i9900 compares to the HP2200. HP claims 90 yr lightfastness, I cannot find anywhere that Canon makes any claims to lightfast.

Anyone had the chance to compare the two?

When I saw the ad for the i9900, I went gogga over it. Thought it was great and price was good. Couldn't find any info about print longevity so I emailed Canon. They replied that using their paper/inks you could realisticly expect the print to last 25years.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/20/2004 05:06:04 PM · #17

only 25 years? That's horrible...

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/20/2004 05:19:53 PM · #18

As I said before... anything you want to last longer than 25 years should be sent out to a processing service (Shutterfly, DPCPrints, etc.) for a 'real' print on photo paper. The cost is about the same (or less) as an inkjet print, particularly for 4x6 sizes. The best inkjet printers, while extremely good, still can't match the best processed prints.

07/20/2004 05:32:00 PM · #19

Quite true... I use Shutterfly and DPCprints all the time now. I just wish it were cheaper to get 24 hour turn around. I should just get an office machine... The i9900 did look cool though!

LindaLee

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

07/20/2004 06:19:12 PM · #20

After reading Gordon's post, I remembered that the printers we had a the local college for printing our photos were Epson 825 and 925, and I was astounded at the quality of the prints! And those printers are CHEAP! Honestly, if I could only afford ONE, I would probably go with and Epson.

@ digistoune: I am quite surprised by the 25 year longevity. I would have thought that Canon's technology would be closer to what HP claims (75-90 year lightfastness). But then again, maybe HP is just blowing smoke...

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

07/20/2004 07:02:50 PM · #21

Originally posted by mirdonamy:

only 25 years? That's horrible...

It seems unlikely that it is even 25 years.

Inkjet Print Longevity

digistoune

Canon EOS-20D

07/20/2004 07:12:14 PM · #22

Originally posted by lhall:

I was surprised (and disappointed) too.