Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon ipf 5000 report  (Read 9604 times)
Tony B.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74


« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2007, 11:51:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi John, thanks for the article, also thanks for mentioning my name, I am emailing copies to all my friends and family  .  I hope my posts on the Wiki are helping out.  I feel that I am probably one of the least experienced users on the Wiki.  I will normally post my views and thoughts even when they might not make any sense.

Well, for the sake of trying to keep this short I just deleted 2 pages of my journey into digital photography/printing to give the view of a beginner/intermediate user of the iPF5000.

A quick rundown.  I have been using letter sized consumer photo printers for about 6 years.  All for personal/gift use, no selling of prints.  I used 3rd party inks because OEM inks costs to much (for my purposes 10x more for OEM inks over 3rd party inks).  Also, I have never been worried about fading (even though some ink/paper combo’s fade very quick).  I had never thought about a pigment printer because of ink costs.  I then heard about the iPF5000 (and Epson 3800) that, for me, would bring pigment ink printing costs down to a reasonable level.  I bought the iPF5000 printer.  I knew it was big and I have the space for it but it is BIG compared to the 3800.  But if you want a roll feeder and a cassette it is still the only cost effective option out there.  Only thing would be if it was able to print on smaller sheets (4x6) like the 3800.  I would not buy a 13x19 pigment printer at this time because of ink costs.

Anyways, the printer arrived (took another week to get the roll feed unit).  During initial setup the printer had a printhead error.  The 1st call to Canon had them sending me a new printhead and new set of inks for that printhead (6 cartridges) overnight.  Installed the new printhead and ended up with a ‘maintenance cartridge full’ error and could not continue.  It was Friday night and I had to go buy a new maintenance cartridge on Saturday.  Installed and the printer finished initial setup.  2nd call to Canon on Monday had them sending me a new maintenance cartridge (now I have an extra when needed).

After setup used Qimage to make my 1st print.  Came out ok, used Kirkland glossy paper with Canon Photo Paper Plus profile.  Anyways, the prints came out as I would expect from reading the forums.  Quality wise looked the same as my consumer letter sized photo printers.  They now have gloss differential that to me is not that bad.  You have to get the light just right to see it.  But, now I hope I do not have any fading issues.  Going from dye to pigment is like going from a p&s camera to a Dslr because of the saturation.  I got so used to over saturated colors that when going to less saturated images it took awhile to get used to even though the less saturated images are normally more accurate to the scene.

I personally do not think that having to let the printer know what paper you load is a big deal.  You are at the printer loading it, it only takes 15 seconds to select the correct paper/size settings in the printer.  Then no more hassle until you load more paper.  I do not use the tray so I do not have to set it after each use (even though it keeps the last selected items as default).

Also, no difference printing on a large format printer over a small home printer.  Yes there are more options in the print driver for color settings and stuff but nothing to make printing any more difficult.

Once my roll feed unit arrived I went and purchased the least expensive roll of paper I could find, Canon Heavyweight Matte-coated.  This is so I can get used to printing on the roll and learning proper post processing for larger prints.  My roll feeder was bad from the beginning but at this time it does not cause me much grief.  I have to push the paper into the printer for it to load (I guess normally the roll unit will take the paper once inserted ˝ to 1 inch.  I also get errors when ejecting the roll but those just need to be cleared to print from the cassette.  The tray also does not work but I have not needed the tray yet.  I will get with Canon at some point to get the roll unit repaired.

With the far edge banding issue that was out there.  I only had 2 or 3 photographs that it would show up on.  I even downloaded and printed the banding test file that John had and could not see the banding in his file, also for me only noticed on glossy paper.  For me, I knew it was there but most people (friends and family) did not notice (or at least not mention it).  The upgrade to firmware 1.23 with the updated far edge adjust fixes that concern.  The 1.08 firmware far edge adjustment did nothing.  I also had a period of good prints with glossy, going to matte for a week, then back to glossy only to find carriage strikes on the prints.  I head height adjustment fixed that but later changed back to auto and no longer had carriage strikes, not sure what happened there.

For me the issues are ink longevity and printhead life.  I do not print a lot.  At the rate I print I think it will take me a couple of years to replace all cartridges.  I just hope the printheads can last 5 or more years.
I think right now with the new line of printers if someone wants a large format printer (ok a 17" printer) that has a cassette the only options are the Epson 3800 and Canon iPF5000.  My printing needs do not need over 17" at this time.  I also would not get one without a cassette.  If they want cassette and roll then it is the iPF5000.  If any family or friends asked me what one to get it is an issue with wanting a roll and space requirements.  If they would like a roll option it would be the Canon, if not probably the 3800 because of size.   I know printhead life and ink longevity are big considerations but at this time you have to guess that they would be similar to Epsons.  I also hope if I ever have a ink cartridge chip failure it gets replaced. Another thing is how necessary the vacuum system of the Canon iPF5000 maybe it really helps keep the paper flat, maybe necessary for rolls, I do not know.

Anyways, so far I am happy I bought the printer even with the few issues I have had and still have (roll feed unit).  A lot of that still goes to the fact that ink costs seem to be much less than the 3800.  It would be nice to have a better manual but who reads the manuals anyways  , thats what the Wiki is for.  I really like what HP has been doing with the technical newsletters that they have been putting out.  Also, it would be nice to know what changes are being made with newer firmware.

Well, if you got this far thanks for reading.

Tony Bartlett
Logged
NikosR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 622


WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 31, 2007, 02:17:06 AM »
ReplyReply

It might be interesting to contrast Canon service and warranty attitude reported here with Epson's as reported in this thread:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=15628
Logged

Nikos
schaubild
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #22 on: March 31, 2007, 02:43:35 AM »
ReplyReply

The complaints about Canon customer service sound far too familiar to me. My experiences with them in Switzerland have led to the conclusion that here no customer service exists. Unfriendly and unhelpful in case of problems. After spending more than USD 25k on their equipment I expected something very different.
Examples for perfect service oriented companies: Alpa, Hasselblad and Sinar. In case of problems I was always helped immediately.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 02:43:59 AM by schaubild » Logged
tbonanno
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 31, 2007, 02:50:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi John, thanks for the article, also thanks for mentioning my name, I am emailing copies to all my friends and family  .  I hope my posts on the Wiki are helping out.  I feel that I am probably one of the least experienced users on the Wiki.  I will normally post my views and thoughts even when they might not make any sense.

Tony Bartlett
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109816\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just for the record, Tony B. is Tony Bartlett;  tbonanno is Tony Bonanno  (we get confused on the WIKI too :-).  

Generally speaking, I've been very pleased with my iPF5000.  Trouble-free performance and print quality since early August, 2006.  Thanks to John's Wiki site and Michael's forums for filling in the information gaps.

Ironically, the only hair-pulling issue I had was the trailing edge banding.  The fact that there was an adjustment designed into the printer that totally solved the "problem" was the good news.  The bad news was that no one at Canon USA knew about the adjustment !!  (And of course, there was NO documentation about it).  The WIKI site users, after many weeks of frustration and collective troubleshooting, finally figured it out for themselves (and for everyone else too).  A truly inexcusable scenario on Canon's part.

Canon, Are you listening ?

Tony Bonanno
Logged

Tony Bonanno Photography
ASMP General Member
Santa Fe, New Mexico
http://www.bonannophoto.com
Jim_H_WY
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 22


« Reply #24 on: March 31, 2007, 03:52:47 PM »
ReplyReply

To be fair, my experiences with Canon Tech Support in the US have been different than what you're describing in Switzerland.

Calls have been answered immediately (no waiting in automated hold queues).  The people have all been very friendly and have done their best to be helpful.  I've never once had a bad or unfriendly experience with them.

But the problem seems to be that while US Canon Tech Support does their best, they've been left twisting in the wind with the rest of us because they can't get answers from Canon either.  Add to that some corporate policies which further tie their hands, and you've got a situation where these people try their best but simply do not have the information or authority to get things fixed in some situations.

Jim H.
Logged
sugendran
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2007, 05:11:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Just my two pence worth. I actually found that the Canon did every thing I wanted. I did have a them problem of the faulty starter cartridge - i.e. it stopped getting recognized by the printer. But a quick phone call to my dealer (DES in Sydney) and all was fixed in two days.

The one thing that did strike a chord was the bit about Wilhelm not publishing their findings. Both because I was promised longevity in my prints and also because it throws into question Wilhelm Research's integrity.

-- Sugendran
Logged

Sugendran Ganess
Photography by Sugendran
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2007, 05:22:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Both because I was promised longevity in my prints and also because it throws into question Wilhelm Research's integrity.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This has categorically nothing to do with WIR's integrity. This part of WIR is a commercial business conducting tests for its clients under contract. It is unimagineable that WIR could simply publish its clients' data at will without the clients' authority to do so. The problem is the client, not WIR. In fact, what this episode indicates to me is a situation of total integrity on the part of WIR - they are most likely telling the client the results as they see them. What the client does as a result of that information is the client's business - not a problem for WIR.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
sugendran
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2007, 05:43:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This has categorically nothing to do with WIR's integrity. This part of WIR is a commercial business conducting tests for its clients under contract. It is unimagineable that WIR could simply publish its clients' data at will without the clients' authority to do so. The problem is the client, not WIR. In fact, what this episode indicates to me is a situation of total integrity on the part of WIR - they are most likely telling the client the results as they see them. What the client does as a result of that information is the client's business - not a problem for WIR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Ah right. My bad. I guess I had a different view to what WIR was doing. Didn't know about the commercial side of things.
Logged

Sugendran Ganess
Photography by Sugendran
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2007, 07:35:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This has categorically nothing to do with WIR's integrity. This part of WIR is a commercial business conducting tests for its clients under contract. It is unimagineable that WIR could simply publish its clients' data at will without the clients' authority to do so. The problem is the client, not WIR. In fact, what this episode indicates to me is a situation of total integrity on the part of WIR - they are most likely telling the client the results as they see them. What the client does as a result of that information is the client's business - not a problem for WIR.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It has everything to do with WIR's integrity. I don't see a reason why WIR couldn't do the testing without Canon's approval - after all, the printer, ink and papers are available in the stores.

Any such testing that requires approval by the manufacturer screams "conflict of interest," and is definitely an issue of integrity. And it appears that conflict of interest is exactly what's happening here, as it's apparent that WIR was commissioned to do such testing a year or so ago. Yet no published results.

I do understand that such testing is not cheap, and as long as there's no industry-wide body to fund such tests, manufacturers have to do so. Any reputable manufacturer who stands by their product would give the printer, inks and papers to WIR with no strings attached, ie. results get published even if they don't please the PR people at the printer manufacturer.
Logged

cmburns
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2007, 11:00:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I'd just like for Canon to know that this really does matter. I've spent a lot of money with them the last few years on bodies, lenses etc. and need a printer. It has to WORK. If they want to send me one for free and have me as a beta tester, ok i'll put up with some bugs, but when i'm spending thousands of dollars for something it should be bullet proof. And yeah it is thousands when you figure in paper, inks, and now apparently maybe $600 heads every year times 2.

     I had high hopes for this printer. It seemed to do all the things Epson wasn't doing but I decided to wait after reading about what a mess the non-existent manuals were. I figured i'd wait, they'd get that straightened out, get the kinks worked out and then I could buy. I started researching again when I started seeing the prices falling. It hasn't taken long to see that this printer is getting killed by it's lack of technical support. I cannot imagine getting this printer, it being DOA or near to it, and Canon not getting me another new one right away, much less waiting for weeks for it to work. When you get a new toy you want to play right then.
     So for now i'll wait. None of the offerings from Epson, HP or Canon have everything. Perhaps in the next generation Canon will get HP's customer support and colorimeter(and tell us how long the prints will last), Epson will get Canons clog free operation, 16 bit output, wider gamut and frugalness with ink,  and HP's calorimiter, and HP will get a cassette feed and a price drop. Whoever does the most of these things will get some money out of my, and likely many others wallets.

    It just seems like printers are at the DSLR equivalent of say the Nikon D1, or Canon D60. Yes you could use them and get good results but they were pricey and didn't work well in a lot of situations. It was mainly the early adopters that bought them, and shared info on line(remember the D1's Magenta problem.)I'm waiting for the 10D, which to me was a huge jump in quality and a huge fall in price. Heck i'd even pay up for a 1DS2, very expensive, built like a tank, capable of incredible quality and years ahead of the competition. It's just a matter of who's going to get it all together.
Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2007, 11:56:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
None of the offerings from Epson, HP or Canon have everything. Perhaps in the next generation Canon will get HP's customer support and colorimeter(and tell us how long the prints will last), Epson will get Canons clog free operation, 16 bit output, wider gamut and frugalness with ink,  and HP's calorimiter, and HP will get a cassette feed and a price drop.

I think you nailed it here.  Each of the printers from the big 3 has just enough problems (different problems, but just as many) to be a real pain in the butt.  I swore off Epson for the clogging and the black ink swap, and look what I got myself into with the Canon.  The HP DJ130 I had was a bitch for loading paper, and never produced decent color in the dark shadows, plus if you got a drop of water near it, forget it.  Each of these offerings was close, but had major drawbacks.  I think I will sit out the HP Z3100 and wait for the next round.

--John
Logged
Dale_Cotton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580


WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 01, 2007, 07:53:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I seem to recall that, when the Wilhelm Institute first put up a web site, it had a chunk of background info and said results for the Epson 7600/9600 (original UltraChrome) would be posted in a few weeks. Months later, those results still were missing in action. When they finally were put up - with nary a word of apology or explanation - they were in the 70 to 150 year range, pretty much setting the bar for anything to follow.

My understanding is that the Wilhelm Institute has a standard light intensity they use for accelerated testing. If a paper starts to show problems after a simulated 20 years, then that result will show in X months of real time. So presumably it would take 5X months to get to 100 years, etc. If this is the case, and if the requisite number of months simply hasn't passed since Canon submitted papers, printer, and ink for testing, then might they not yet be posted for that reason?
« Last Edit: April 01, 2007, 07:54:42 AM by Dale Cotton » Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2007, 09:06:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My understanding is that the Wilhelm Institute has a standard light intensity they use for accelerated testing. If a paper starts to show problems after a simulated 20 years, then that result will show in X months of real time. So presumably it would take 5X months to get to 100 years, etc. If this is the case, and if the requisite number of months simply hasn't passed since Canon submitted papers, printer, and ink for testing, then might they not yet be posted for that reason?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, this is possible.  However, some quick calculations based on the testing standards have me concerned.

Wilhelm uses 35,000 Lux illumination, presumably on 24 hours per day.  There is assumed to be a recirocal relationship between light intensity and time, such that:

light intensity * time = constant

The "Wilhelm years" are calculated based on 450 lux for 12 hours a day. Thus, assuming no reciprocity failure (which is how the calculations are done):

Wilhelm years = [time to fading] * 2 * 35000 / 450

or

Wilhelm years = 155.5 * [time to fading]

Note that the factor of 2 is due to the fact that a Wilhelm year assumes only 12 hours per day illumination of the print.

If there was preliminary data in February, 2006 that prints would last at least 100 years (on selected, but unspecified media), the test had presumably been going on for 100/155.5 years, or about 8 months. Since another 13 months have passed, the data would presumably show (if no fading) a longevity of at least:

100 + ((13/12)*155.5) = 268 years

Thus my contention that data has presumably been available for quite some time about the longevity of the inks (or at least a minimum amount of time, if the tests are still in progress because fading has not yet occurred sufficient to end the test).

--John
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2007, 10:59:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Data for the HP Vivera pigment inks is already available from WIR. Weren't the Vivera pigments and the Lucia pigments released around the same time?
Logged

Dale_Cotton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 580


WWW
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2007, 12:30:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If there was preliminary data in February, 2006 that prints would last at least 100 years (on selected, but unspecified media), the test had presumably been going on for 100/155.5 years, or about 8 months. Since another 13 months have passed
Heaven knows I have no reason to take Canon's side, but other interpretations occur. The R&D on new ink sets is likely going on fairly continuously at all the major printer mfgs. I imagine there are batches of different formulations of prospective new pigment inks from the Canon labs sent to WIR for some sort of testing quite regularly. They may even specify preliminary, accelerated testing - anything to get some feedback about longevity to help them weigh the various alternatives.

If so, it would be those preliminary numbers they are quoting when they say "at least 100 years", and WIR may well have needed to start all over again with the final formulation and/or new papers and/or using their standard methodology.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #35 on: April 01, 2007, 12:34:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think there's much point speculating about this. The printer has been on the market long enough, and the final inks they are manufacturing most likely formulated and tested a long enough time back that they could have authorized publication of data if they were so inclined. They owe the world a statement. Let us see if they make it.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jpgentry
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 197


« Reply #36 on: April 03, 2007, 10:24:20 PM »
ReplyReply

I've stated this in the past, but I really think that Canon didn't expect so many prosumers/consumers to buy the IPF5000 line.  I think the rebates accelerated this even further.

Canon's website is unbelievably devoid of information on this line of printer.  It's so sad that they are killing their products reputation like this when it didn't have to be this way.

I love my printer and have had no problems, and found tech support to be very helpful in the US.  I just think there is some kind of disconnect in the company.  An arrogance at some level.

I don't regret buying the 8000.  I'm so glad I bought it before this bad PR hit because I probably wouldn't have, had I heard what I'm hearing now.  I really don't even think the problems are that bad, and I read reports of many people getting things replaced right away.  The company is just killing themselves with this no-communcation policy.

-Jonathan
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad