Question re Canon iP1500
in [Printers]
|
From: Mary on 18 Apr 2006 00:50 "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1145334329.059048.90400(a)u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... > > Mary wrote: > > > I thought you knew I always buy Staples compatibles for my ip1500 and > > always have, except for one time not long ago when I had the color > > problem on my photos, I tried Canon brand but the problem was still > > there with the colors. It was only an experiment to try Canon. > > Staples brand was fine for the whole year then the printhead didn't work > > properly and not long after that, the ink waste absorber pads went. > > I know you buy staples, I know nothing about staples ink. > > > For example, brand name ink, brand name paper, is rated according to > > > them 100years in an album, 30 years under glass, 10 years if totally > > > unprotected. These number are hard to believe, but I can believe that > > > a print life can be increased by storing it away, or saving it under > > > glass. Spray is a nice medium between protecting it underglass and > > not > > > protecting it at all. I wouldn't know anything about Staples ink in that regard. > > I have never seen that spray here, but maybe it is. I will keep these > > things in mind. And yes, the numbers are hard to believe. I would think > > they would last more than 10 years. How do you store your photos that > > you print on your printer? > > More than 10 years? I've met prints when exposed to the sunlight that > didn't last months. Though my last test of the PR-101 paper did take > the sun for 3 months before I lost the print. I'm somewhat new to > photo printing so I have yet to work out a cool procedure. For photos > and negatives I store them in an album with a zipper. You osaid they would last 10 years and I thought you meant protected like in an album they would only last 10 years. I mistook what you said. > > As I asked, is the ip3000 as good as the ip4000. Does the extra large > > black in the ip4000 mean a much better photo than the ip300? I also saw > > iP2200 around but not in Staples. Staples seem only to stock the latest > > printers and when they get older, they end up at the warehouse, where > > they sell them online. They like to keep up to date I guess. > > The ip3000 is as good as the ip4000 but lacks the dye black tank. If > the black is 80% in blackness, the dye black kicks in on the ip4000. > The ip3000 mixes cyan, magenta, and yellow to make black. The effect > very much depends on your ink, but the stuff I buy it's actually very > black. Most of the time I can not tell the difference, and there is > only a difference if there is dark black in the picture. Does it make much difference in print quality if the ip3000 doesn't have that extra darker black? After all, most printers only have the one black, not a regular black and a darker black such as the IP 4000 and ip4200 have, and maybe other models. > They both have large black tanks, the ip3000 lacks the small black. > > The ip2200 is likely an upgrade to the ip2000, which was similar to the > ip1500. I was not aware they existed in North America. It's basicly > an ip1600 from my understanding, so definatly the head on the cartridge > type. It will however accept the high yield versions of the head on > the cartridge type, where the ip1600 doesn't list those as being an > option. I don't know all of this for a fact, it's not a printer i've > ever met personaly. All I know is it's basicly the same thing as the > ip1600. Budget class, expensive ink, no compatables. Did they make the ip2200 after they made the 1600? I guess if they keep number sequence the 2200 would be made first. The 2200 is not in Staples stores nor online, only the 1500 is in Staples stores and is $70.00. and yes, expensive ink and no compatibles. > Ip3000 on the other hand is on close out, costs the same as an ip1600, > but comes with ttriple the ink. 11.0lbs, so lighter than the ip4000 > at 14.9 lbs. Same size though, an unlike the ip4000 it doesn't offer a > parelell port, it's USB only. > http://www.canon.ca/english/index-products.asp?lng=en&prodid=879&sgid=23&gid=2&ovr=1&arch=1 The ip1500 I have only has USB but I have USB ports. > It has all the bells and whistles of the ip4000... and also CD printing > can be enabled on it if you buy a tray. You can get these on e-bay, > and I think Canadians can order them from the canon parts dealer. If > you can, you can sell them to yanks at 100% profit and they would be > thankful. I don't know what CD printing is. you mean printing CD labels to put on your CD to identify them? Sell the part that can create CD labels you mean?
From: zakezuke on 18 Apr 2006 01:13 Mary wrote: > I don't know what CD printing is. you mean printing CD labels to put on > your CD to identify them? Sell the part that can create CD labels you > mean? Take a printable CD... they come in white or silver, put them in the tray, and print upon them. They are not sticky lablels. http://www.canon.com.au/images/image_library_low_res/ip4000%20with%20cd_rgb.jpg Sticky Labels have issues. Printable CDs. Yanks can not buy the tray, this feature is disabled in North America because of a licensing issue with phillips. But people import the tray from overseas and canada. I believe Canadians can order them from the Canon parts dealer, but I know you can buy the tray from e-bay. > Did they make the ip2200 after they made the 1600? I guess if they keep > number sequence the 2200 would be made first. The 2200 is not in Staples > stores nor online, only the 1500 is in Staples stores and is $70.00. and > yes, expensive ink and no compatibles. I have no idea when the ip2200 was made, esp since it wasn't released in America. I know it exists, apparently in Canada. I think it takes the small and large tanks, where the ip1600 I think takes the small tanks only. But I really don't know. These are not models i'd even consider. > Does it make much difference in print quality if the ip3000 doesn't have > that extra darker black? > After all, most printers only have the one black, not a regular black > and a darker black such as the IP 4000 and ip4200 have, and maybe other > models. The only time there would be a difference is when there is black in the photo.. as in 80% black or higher. As to which is blacker, it depends. I buy my ink from MIS and the mix ends up being blacker in my eyes than the ip4000. But it may be possible Staples ink wouldn't be blacker, or the black might be shifted to one end of the spectrium. I don't know. I know that on my mp760 the small black is used about 1/4 of the time as the small black... it is very rarely used. Most printers have one black. But printers who have a pigment black and dye color tend not to use it on photo paper, it ends up looking matte and doesn't sink into the paper. Your IP1500 looks like it takes a pigment black, so I "assume" your printer works in the same way. If you are happy with the staples black in photos you would be happy with the ip3000 black in photos. I base this info on "Image Specalists", the mfg of my ink. They list the ip1500 as having pigmented black, and dye color, and they list the ink being the same as the ip3000.
From: Mary on 18 Apr 2006 01:33 "zakezuke" <zakezuke_us(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1145337216.242116.293720(a)j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Mary wrote: > > > I don't know what CD printing is. you mean printing CD labels to put on > > your CD to identify them? Sell the part that can create CD labels you > > mean? > > Take a printable CD... they come in white or silver, put them in the > tray, and print upon them. They are not sticky lablels. > http://www.canon.com.au/images/image_library_low_res/ip4000%20with%20cd_rgb.jpg > > Sticky Labels have issues. Printable CDs. How do you print on the CD's. they look like labels though they are not. > Yanks can not buy the tray, this feature is disabled in North America > because of a licensing issue with phillips. But people import the > tray from overseas and canada. I believe Canadians can order them from the > Canon parts dealer, but I know you can buy the tray from e-bay. I see what you mean about Yanks want the parts (the tray I guess) I didn't know there was such a tray. You mean the feature is disabled in the US but not Canada, but you said North America which is Canada and the US and Mexico, but we in Canada usually think of North America as Canada and the US. What has Phillips to do with anything? Do they make the tray? > > Does it make much difference in print quality if the ip3000 doesn't have > > that extra darker black? > > After all, most printers only have the one black, not a regular black > > and a darker black such as the IP 4000 and ip4200 have, and maybe other > > models. > > The only time there would be a difference is when there is black in the > photo.. as in 80% black or higher. As to which is blacker, it depends. > I buy my ink from MIS and the mix ends up being blacker in my eyes > than the ip4000. But it may be possible Staples ink wouldn't be > blacker, or the black might be shifted to one end of the spectrium. I > don't know. I know that on my mp760 the small black is used about 1/4 > of the time as the small black... it is very rarely used. > Most printers have one black. But printers who have a pigment black > and dye color tend not to use it on photo paper, it ends up looking > matte and doesn't sink into the paper. > > Your IP1500 looks like it takes a pigment black, so I "assume" your > printer works in the same way. If you are happy with the staples black > in photos you would be happy with the ip3000 black in photos. I base > this info on "Image Specalists", the mfg of my ink. They list the > ip1500 as having pigmented black, and dye color, and they list the ink > being the same as the ip3000. The photos I print on my ip1500 seem OK. I thought all black carts were the same so didn't consider if another black would be better or not. As far as I know, when you print color photos, there is always some black in them, but unless I had a 4000 or 4200 with the large darker black to compare the ip1500 with, I wouldn't know if the 4000 or 4200 photos looked any better or not. Unless you photograph something that is actually black, you can't see black in photos. would using the large black cart in the 4000 make a color photo look richer looking or darker picture? is that the idea of having it in the 4000?
From: zakezuke on 18 Apr 2006 02:32 > How do you print on the CD's. they look like labels though they are not. You put the CD in the tray, open "inner door" and put tray in printer. Press print. Tray goes in, wiggles around, out comes CD with image printed on it. Labels are glued, they come off, sometimes with large bits of data. In my case, my DVD player spits them out at me. Printable disks just take ink, and no spitting. > I see what you mean about Yanks want the parts (the tray I guess) I > didn't know there was such a tray. You mean the feature is disabled in > the US but not Canada, but you said North America which is Canada and > the US and Mexico, but we in Canada usually think of North America as > Canada and the US. What has Phillips to do with anything? Do they make the > tray? Philips owns the patent for CDs. From my understanding Epson shells money their way to print on CDs. The feature is disabled in North America, as in USA Mexico, Canada. South America too from my understanding. this gent, Golgota in Peru for example didn't have the feature enabled on his. Near as I'm aware it's an American thing, but the feature is disabled on all printers shipped near America including Peru. > The photos I print on my ip1500 seem OK. I thought all black carts were > the same so didn't consider if another black would be better or not. As > far as I know, when you print color photos, there is always some black > in them, but unless I had a 4000 or 4200 with the large darker black to > compare the ip1500 with, I wouldn't know if the 4000 or 4200 photos > looked any better or not. It's not a darker black, it's a dye black. Near as I'm aware the ip1500 does not print photos with black, it mixes cyan maganta and yellow to make black. Otherwise you would have a patch of black that looks flat on your semi-gloss paper. Like black construction paper. In the most simple terms possible, tripple the ink is used to make black. Not a problem on photo paper. Matte paper gets somewhat soggy but it does dry, but saying plain paper it uses the pigment black, and solves the soggy problem. But if you never noticed a muddy black where it should be black, then what you are using, the staples ink, should be just spiffy. This is the only thing that the ip4000 has over the ip3000, that an an old style paralell cable, which isn't an issue if you have USB. > Unless you photograph something that is actually black, you can't see >black in photos. would using the large black cart in the 4000 make a >color photo look richer looking or darker picture? is that the idea of >having it in the 4000? The idea is the pigment black looks bad on photo paper, as the colors are dye. You can either mix the color and make a black, or have an extra black. If the black is 80% or higher, dye black kicks in. In "MY" eyes on my printer using my ink, the mix of color to make black is actually darker than the name brand canon black. I hardly ever notice a difference between the prints on those two printers. I "imagine" that since 1/3 the volume of liquid is used on the ip4000, and only one set of nozzles, I imagine that black lines would be higher in detail than on the ip3000. The only time I even notice a difference is when i'm looking for it, and when there is much in the way of black in the photo. For DVD labels, mostly black ones, it looks just fine. Again, the condition the dye black gets used is when the blackness is 80% or higher. Only under this conditioon would these two printers print differently. This offers an edge in photos, perhaps some detail to black as it's using 1/3 the volume as mixing three colors. But the fact remains... it's the only printer I can see that you can buy in Canada which takes large Staples tanks. Assuming $7.00 a pop for a thimble sized tank, that would be $20.00 in a big black tank assuming 2.9x. The staples big black is $12.72 each, a savings of 37%. Assuming $20.96 for a thimble sized color tank. 4.6ml per color. The ip3000 color Staples brand is 16ml. 3.5x larger. Assuming $13.46 each or $40.38, that is a savings of 44%. This is for a printer which costs $74.99... which comes with the equilivent of 2.9 black tanks and 3.5 color tanks, assuming $7 each for black, and assuming $20.96 for tri.color... That's $93.66 in Staples bci-24 black and color ink. Unless you can buy color tanks for yours at under $11.57 and black tanks for under $4.64 each... this $75 which comes with the equlivent of $100 in ip1500 compatable ink will cost very much less to operate. Unless you buy the cartridges on the staples website at the loonie price they have at the moment, the ip3000 is a wise investment. 1. costs less to operate under most conditions 2. Has more features 3. Faster 4. More nozzles. 5. Should last 3 years And you have an ip1500 with a perfectly good head which would likely fetch a few bucks in the used circuit. And you can be honest about it... "I bought a printer where the ink is cheaper, but you can't get my printer anymore. They don't make this one either, and it takes staples compatables".
From: measekite on 18 Apr 2006 10:52
Mary wrote: >"zakezuke" <zakezuke_us(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:1145337216.242116.293720(a)j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > >>Mary wrote: >> >> >> >>>I don't know what CD printing is. you mean printing CD labels to put >>> >>> >on > > >>>your CD to identify them? Sell the part that can create CD labels >>> >>> >you > > >>>mean? >>> >>> CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS. AND HE RESPONDS :-D :-D :-D >>Take a printable CD... they come in white or silver, put them in the >>tray, and print upon them. They are not sticky lablels. >> >> >> >http://www.canon.com.au/images/image_library_low_res/ip4000%20with%20cd_rgb.jpg > > >>Sticky Labels have issues. Printable CDs. >> >> > >How do you print on the CD's. they look like labels though they are not. > > > >>Yanks can not buy the tray, this feature is disabled in North America >>because of a licensing issue with phillips. But people import the >>tray from overseas and canada. I believe Canadians can order them >> >> >from the > > >>Canon parts dealer, but I know you can buy the tray from e-bay. >> >> > >I see what you mean about Yanks want the parts (the tray I guess) I >didn't know there was such a tray. You mean the feature is disabled in >the US but not Canada, but you said North America which is Canada and >the US and Mexico, but we in Canada usually think of North America as >Canada >and the US. What has Phillips to do with anything? Do they make the >tray? > > > >>>Does it make much difference in print quality if the ip3000 doesn't >>> >>> >have > > >>>that extra darker black? >>>After all, most printers only have the one black, not a regular >>> >>> >black > > >>>and a darker black such as the IP 4000 and ip4200 have, and maybe >>> >>> >other > > >>>models. >>> >>> >>The only time there would be a difference is when there is black in >> >> >the > > >>photo.. as in 80% black or higher. As to which is blacker, it >> >> >depends. > > >> I buy my ink from MIS and the mix ends up being blacker in my eyes >>than the ip4000. But it may be possible Staples ink wouldn't be >>blacker, or the black might be shifted to one end of the spectrium. I >>don't know. I know that on my mp760 the small black is used about 1/4 >>of the time as the small black... it is very rarely used. >> >> > > > >>Most printers have one black. But printers who have a pigment black >>and dye color tend not to use it on photo paper, it ends up looking >>matte and doesn't sink into the paper. >> >>Your IP1500 looks like it takes a pigment black, so I "assume" your >>printer works in the same way. If you are happy with the staples >> >> >black > > >>in photos you would be happy with the ip3000 black in photos. I base >>this info on "Image Specalists", the mfg of my ink. They list the >>ip1500 as having pigmented black, and dye color, and they list the ink >>being the same as the ip3000. >> >> > >The photos I print on my ip1500 seem OK. I thought all black carts were >the same so didn't consider if another black would be better or not. As >far as I know, when you print color photos, there is always some black >in them, but unless I had a 4000 or 4200 with the large darker black to >compare the ip1500 with, I wouldn't know if the 4000 or 4200 photos >looked any better or not. >Unless you photograph something that is actually black, you can't see >black in photos. would using the large black cart in the 4000 make a >color photo look richer looking or darker picture? is that the idea of >having it in the 4000? > > > |