I have used the Epson R1800 (and the smaller R800) for several years and when it wasn't clogged it printed beautiful prints. The heads finally just clogged up and I was forced to get another printer. I have used other Canon products for decades so biased toward their products. I thought the Canon would be better on the clogging, and I haven't had it long enough to judge that yet. So far I am somewhat disappointed with the printer. There are two limitations so far that are signficant for my use.
I'm more interested in matte papers and fine art papers, and really don't print glossy. Getting used to this printer has been somewhat frustrating. I had been using Epson Presentation Matte and getting really nice prints from a relatively inexpensive paper with good dark blacks and good shadow detail. Duplicating that with Canon has been a challenge. I haven't been able to determine yet if it's the profiles or the printer. My next step is to try custom profiles. I have tried several brands (Ilford, Moab, Harmon) and their suppled profiles and for some of them the blues have a purple cast, and the blacks and shadow detail are muddy. The Canon fine art paper is very nice and matches well with color, good deep blacks and shadow detail(see limitation in next paragraph). So I have yet to find an acceptable photo matte combination.
This printer has a maddening limiation for fine art papers. Canon has decide to disable the ability to print on either end of the paper (requires a 35mm margin on each of the long ends, about 1.3 inches) so you can't even print an 8x10 out of an 8 1/2 x 11 piece of paper. When I called Canon I got a run around and no sensible explanation except the engineers decided to disable the function of the printer and no workarounds. So while the image quality of the Canon fine art rag is very good, it is very expensive to use because of this limitation (which requires you to use a much large piece of paper to get the size print you expect because of all the wasted paper, 13x19 piece of paper to get an 8x10 ). I have since found other reviews mentioning this limitation, and I sure wish I had seen it before purchasing. I don't know if you can fool it with custom profiles.
In general it has required far more work to try to find paper combinations than I ever experienced with Epson where the profiles and papers just seemed to work. I'm still hopeful that I can find the right combination with some customer profiles, but right now the jury is out. Canon Pixma PRO9500MkII Inkjet Photo Printer (3298B002)
I'd say this printer is currently the best in it's class for print quality. Not by a lot, but it's noticeable if you look. I don't think you'd go wrong with a competing Epson, or the Canon 9000. The Canon is built a little better, and the [9500] prints are the best you can get this side of a larger printer (the Image ProGraphs are occasionally better, but not by much).
Addressing some of the "issues":
This is a professional/prosumer photo printer. Use decent paper, use profiles, and expect it to use a lot of ink. That's what it does. That's what they all do. 'Art' paper delivers fabulous results. If you're using Costco glossy paper, this isn't the printer for you. Don't use cheapo refill cartridges either-you're wasting your time and money if you do. If you're not [mostly] printing photos, this isn't the printer for you. Remember, the printer is just an ink delivery device. It's the ink and paper that you're looking at in the end-and that's what you're paying for in the end as well. ie: good paper and good ink are worthwhile.
Ink tanks are all similar size in this printer size range. Sort of imposed by the size of the printer. Higher capacity would probably add six or eight inches to the width of the printer. They have to fit somewhere. If you print a lot of larger format prints, it's probably worthwhile to move up to a 17" or 24" printer (which are much bigger, but also have larger ink tanks. Canon IPF 5100 is a fabulous printer).
Print speed isn't very fast. It's precise and slow, and it prints really well. Faster prints would require reduction in quality or bigger printheads (and a bigger printer).
Print quality is NOT dull. It's vibrant if you use compatible papers with ICC profiles, and print accordingly.
Yes, there's a 35mm border imposed on Fine Art Photo Rag. My understanding is that it's there so that the print heads and paper rollers can guarantee flatness and optimum head speed and things like that when it's laying down ink. You can get satisfactory results on it without the border if you profile it using a different paper setting. It's thick stuff though, so you need to make sure that the head height is appropriate as well.
The Canon 9000 is dye ink, the 9500 pigment ink. The 9500 has gray and matte black ink. The pigment ink is more archival. Dye inks do pretty well these days though. The 9000 is a lot cheaper. I figure because it has smaller heads, fewer ink tanks, and because it doesn't need to add in a 'mixer' for the ink (the 9500 shakes the ink to keep the pigment in suspension). The Epson purges ink like mad. One of the main reasons I moved to the Canon. The 9500 makes better prints too.
For most people's prints that I've seen, a $99 printer is all they need. Four to six colors seem to do it. Those are made of plastic, and are disposable after a couple of years. They do great prints for what they are. If you want mechanical and image quality, the 9500 is great printer. A few dollars a print in the end. Maybe 50-60 8x10's to break even over pro lab print costs?
If it sounds like you're the sort of person who's willing to pay for this quality, the 9500 mkII is certainly worth checking out. If you're not, try looking at the Canon ip4820 or the Epson Artisan-they're both nice enough printers, and they're a lot cheaper (and only letter size prints). Epson R3000, 2880, or 1900 are all worth a look if the Canon doesn't thrill you. (3000 has bigger ink tanks). Or, move up to a better printer. Canon IPF printers have a 12 color system, and they print really well. The HP Z3200 is a nice 24" printer too. Epson's print well, but do seem to waste a lot of ink in cleaning. Really, almost any photo printer made these days does a pretty good job. I find the Canon worthwhile to own, and I'm very happy with what it prints. - Inkjet - Photo Printer - 13x19 - Printer'
Detail Products
Detail Reviews
Click here for more information
