Canon Pixma Pro9000 vs Pro9500?

photobug

I will probably replace my Canon i9900 printer with a Canon Pixma Pro9000 or Pro9500. I realize that the 9500 uses pigment-based inks while the 9000 uses dye-based inks. Also, the 9500 has lighter variations of black ink, to make B&W prints with finer tonal gradiations. I'm not currently selling prints so extreme longevity isn't an issue (the main benefit of pigment-based inks, right?) and I'm not yet seriously making B&W prints, so those don't seem to be huge benefits to me (yet) of the 9500 over the 9000.

So ... are there any other advantages of the 9500 over the 9000, that would make it worth the numerous extra $$?

thanks for any pointers!

David_S85

thread bump

photobug

thread bump

Thanks for the bump, David. A Pro9000 just arrived with my 40D ... I will now either sell the new Pro9000 (and down the road, pick up a Pro9500), or keep the Pro9000 and sell my existing i9900. Any input from this forum will help me decide over the next few days...

xris

Dying to Pigment
This from:
http://americanprinter.com/consumables/paper/printing_massive_media/
Dye vs. pigment inks

What's the difference between dye and pigment inkjet inks? Dye inks are completely dissolved colorants in an aqueous or solvent carrier. (Think of Tang dissolved in water.) Pigment inks are suspended crystalline solids in an aqueous or solvent carrier. (Think of sand stirred in water.)
Dye inks are water-soluble. They penetrate the paper's surface and chemically bond with swellable polymers. Dye inks are compatible with a wide range of substrates but, unlike pigment inks, aren't water resistant.
Pigment inks aren't water soluble — they sit on a paper's surface. Pigment inks offer greater stability than dye inks but generally have a smaller gamut and narrower range of media compatibility.
— Troy Buccini, director of color and media graphics, Mid-State Graphics (www.myproofline.com)

photobug

Thanks ... yes, pigmented inks are known for greater longevity. They are also known for metamerism, where the colors/reflectiveness of the pigments deposited on the surface of the print shift when viewed from an angle (although that effect is said to be much less with the newest generation of pigmented inks/printers).

Here are some interesting URLs I just turned up on the pigment-vs-dye subject:

• On pigment ink metamerism
• On Epson UltraChrome K3 pigment ink
• On Canon's 10-color pigment ink system (e.g. for Pro9500)

Summary of what I've read so far:

Advantages of Dye-Based ink:

• Supports wider color gamut
• Soaks into paper, so no metamerism
• Uniform gloss across page
• Works on wide range of print papers (pigmented inks only work on certain types of photo papers)
• Ink less expensive to produce
• Print heads less expensive to produce
• Newest Dye-based inks have good longevity (some up to 80-100 years) ... but still not as long as pigmented inks

Advantages of Pigmented ink:

• Greater longevity (some up to 200 years)
• Prints are water-resistant (because pigmented inks aren't water-soluable)
• [are there any other advantages for pigmented inks?]

Re ink cost, it looks like pigmented ink tanks for the Pro9500 are about 10-20% more expensive than dye-based ink tanks for the Pro9000. However, that may not be an apples-to-apples comparison because it is not clear if the two ink tanks are the same size, or if the two ink systems even use a similar quantity of ink per print. I'm not sure how to guarantee an accurate comparison of ink costs.

Re longevity, quoted times always assume optimum conditions, at least that the print be under glass (reduced atmospheric exposure) and not out in bright light. Does the quoted times compare to "real world" viewing conditions? Your mileage will vary. All that can be said for sure is that pigmented inks are very likely to last longer than dye-based inks ... how much longer is hard to say.

...So far, this is making me lean toward a dye-based printer -- either the Pro9000 or keeping my current i9900.

Matt_Merciez

I recently went with the 9000. The price difference between the 9000 and 9500 was too great for the difference in quality IMHO. So far I am very happy with the 9000. Using Ilford paper, you will get great results.

photobug

Matt_Merciez wrote:

I recently went with the 9000. The price difference between the 9000 and 9500 was too great for the difference in quality IMHO. So far I am very happy with the 9000. Using Ilford paper, you will get great results.

I've primarily used Canon paper in my i9900 -- but when I tried Ilford Gallerie Pearl, I loved it. I definitely want to continue using Ilford paper, so thanks for the recommendation.

jdryan3

Matt_Merciez wrote:

I recently went with the 9000. The price difference between the 9000 and 9500 was too great for the difference in quality IMHO. So far I am very happy with the 9000. Using Ilford paper, you will get great results.

I can second the Ilford line of papers. I use about 5 different ones.

Tango

9000 or 9500 ?
the main things i see is the 9500 does B&W better (?)
and the 9500 comes with Spyder2 Suite ($114)

i want to print B&W, so im guessing it might be worth it?


:help


(btw, all your posts here on this thread have been helpful!)

photobug

AaronNelson wrote:

9000 or 9500? the main things i see is the 9500 does B&W better (?) and the 9500 comes with Spyder2 Suite

And that the 9000 uses dye-based inks while the 9500 uses pigmented inks, and the differences implied by that (in terms of color space, durability, metamerism, etc).

i want to print B&W, so im guessing it might be worth it?

If I did a lot of B&W, I'd probably go with the 9500 because it has 3 black inks, which would give superior results for B&W.

Tango

the last sentence in one of your links : On pigment ink metamerism
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/dye-pigment-metamerism.html

"Printer manufacturers have made strides in producing more stable dye inks, but for truly professional results, pigment inks are the way to go."

i wish i could see both head to head...but that will not happen.

should i believe what i read?...heck if i know....

anyway, i think the b&w capability in the 9500 is the real sale for me....but again i wonder how much better that claim is.....to my eye anyway

thanks, Aaron

Tango

ok, today i did some gloss prints with the 9500
i used canon gloss
the quaility is just as good in sharpness and every other variable as the EZ prints ive ordered off of my smugmug.
which btw i did a head-to-head test using ez print, mpix, costco, and walmart...and my finding were as smugmugs. EZ prints are far better than the rest...so whats that say about this printer?:D

the metamerism is just as you would expect looking at it on an angle with a light source...

i read that MOAB paper has a luster paper that is made for pigment ink...
so i will try it asap and see if the metamerism is combated

i havent done any B&W yet, will get to it soon...

i did do one canon rag landscape.....and all i can say is

Tango

also did some 5x7 color matte prints and no metamerism at all,
not as vibrant as gloss, but maybe i can do some LR tweaking?
under glass the matte prints look better than the glossy, i just need to figure out the vibrantance tweaking....

APK

pig dye

photobug wrote:

I will probably replace my Canon i9900 printer with a Canon Pixma Pro9000 or Pro9500. I realize that the 9500 uses pigment-based inks while the 9000 uses dye-based inks. Also, the 9500 has lighter variations of black ink, to make B&W prints with finer tonal gradiations. I'm not currently selling prints so extreme longevity isn't an issue (the main benefit of pigment-based inks, right?) and I'm not yet seriously making B&W prints, so those don't seem to be huge benefits to me (yet) of the 9500 over the 9000.

So ... are there any other advantages of the 9500 over the 9000, that would make it worth the numerous extra $$?

thanks for any pointers!

It is my understanding that if a pigment system is not used for a bit the particles seperate out and need to be shaken, and that if not properly stirred you get Print Head clogging. So if you print daily, not a problem. If you print monthly, dye is the way to go.

Tango

the printer shakes them every time its powered on....so power on each day...:D

darkdragon

Just to add to this old thread, as I'm also very much considering a 9000.

The Canon rep I talked to said the 9000 is best for color and the 9500 is best for B/W. I had a huge print straight from the camera on the 9000 on canon matte paper and it was just awesome. Better than what I get from the local print house, and like you said about the 9500 it was close to EZPrints quality.

I've been looking for a large format printer for a year and heavily looking at Epson (all my other printers have been Epson), but the price tag for the 3800 was too high for me. I was really surprised that this little under $500 printer from Canon could even touch a lab for quality - but it did. I was shocked.

I'm still trying to find some info on the cost-per-print average for these large photos with premium (Canon or Illford) papers.

Tango

the papers im really liking is moab luster and lexjet esatin.
i also have some lexjet fiber elite, but im waiting for lexjet to get a icc profile to me (a day or so away)

im not liking the 13 x 19 limit....!

i dont mind the 13, but i would like to make a 13 x "whatever" off a roll and im told canon will not do that...

ive gotta find a way!!!!

darkdragon

AaronNelson wrote:

the papers im really liking is moab luster and lexjet esatin.
i also have some lexjet fiber elite, but im waiting for lexjet to get a icc profile to me (a day or so away)

im not liking the 13 x 19 limit....!

i dont mind the 13, but i would like to make a 13 x "whatever" off a roll and im told canon will not do that...

ive gotta find a way!!!!

I thought I read that the Canon would do that, but I dunno. I'd really love to be able to do 16x20 for rare occations that I need/want that - but I'll leave those really big prints to Smugmug because I don't want to jump that price shark on the printers.