Pixma 9000 MkII or 9500 MkII?

D

Dave Spencer

Suspended / Banned
Messages
33
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
I was wondering if there was anyone that could advise me as to whether the 9500 is worth the extra money over the 9000.

I have no specific requirements other then high quality prints. Will the quality of the 9500 prints be worth that extra couple hundred quid?

As of yet, I haven`t made any attempt to sell my prints, but may well be thinking of this as a future venture.

Regards, Dave.

WHOOPS! Just to add, a t least 50% of my printing will be B+W.
 
Last edited:
I am having the same dilema.
I know nothing about these apart from the specs (I assume you are considering these two because of the cashback)
The 9000 aparently supports canvas and mountboards. Whereas this is not specified as a benefit of the 9500
However, the 9500 has apparently separate ink tanks for matte and gloss colour black, whereas this is not specified as a feature for the 9000

I don't know whether having to swap the inks is important (this will be the first printer that is of this quality for me, previously my printers have been single black, CMY). The canvas and the board is of interest to me though.


The 9000 has a larger number of papers 'qualified' for it
Apart from that and the inks, there appears to be little in it (the 9500 is quieter...) as far as the specifications go, so I guess we need guidance as to the quality of the outcoming print.
 
Last edited:
These 2 printers use different ink types the 9000 uses dye ink and the 9500 uses pigment ink, pigment ink is superior to dye ink in longevity and in other areas and because the 9500 is a 10 colour inkset so it has a wider colour gamut than the 9000, if you print a lot of B&W then the 9500 is considered one of the best B&W A3 printers out there, if you are after cheap running then steer clear of the 9500 as you won't find compatibles or a decent cis for it, dye inks are cheaper, also pigment doesn't have a gloss to it so it looks much nicer than dye ink behind glass.
If you are looking for the best print quality, especially with B&W and on matte paper and you don't mind the extra cost then go for the 9500.
On the other hand if you are looking for cheaper running on a wider range of paper's (and cheaper papers) then go for the 9000
From what I remember the 9500 is a much slower printer than the 9000, so if you are doing lots of printing it's something you might want to consider, also you don't have to swap inks on the 9000 it prints with what is in the printhead, I always thought the 9500 could do canvas, 9500 cartridges are not as easily available as the 9000 cartridge.
All this of coarse is my personal opinion from past experience.
 
POAH said:
thats not a true statement :nono:
Click to expand...

Care to state what part isn't true ?
Canon dye ink is cheaper than canon pigment, and pigment cant be printed on just any old photo paper. but I stand to be corrected

Maybe you also missed "All this of coarse is my personal opinion from past experience."
 
Last edited:
POAH, I had thought of the Epson when it comes to B+W. Now I will have to think some more. Thanks for all the help, people.

Dave.
 
the other thing to consider is the cost of ink which is a lot for both systems.


the epson print dialogue is really simple while the canon is overly complex
 
scraggs said:
Care to state what part isn't true ?
Canon dye ink is cheaper than canon pigment, and pigment cant be printed on just any old photo paper. but I stand to be corrected

Maybe you also missed "All this of coarse is my personal opinion from past experience."
Click to expand...

most of the papers made today are not swellable papers so suitable for pigment. all of the most common papers can be used with pigment ink so the choice of paper is not limited in fact there are a fair few which don't have profiles because they are not designed for dye inks
 
POAH said:
most of the papers made today are not swellable papers so suitable for pigment. all of the most common papers can be used with pigment ink so the choice of paper is not limited in fact there are a fair few which don't have profiles because they are not designed for dye inks
Click to expand...

I will put my hands up (at least i'm man enough to do that :) ) I have just had a look through several of the better known ones and thier range has increased an awfull lot since I started using pigment, I am happy with what I use and haven't really looked since I have stuck with those papers. however that said I still won't be putting staples or tesco papers through my pigment printer :)
 
I came to make a similar decision to the OP some time ago (albeit it was the mk 1 version of the printers).

I settled for the 9000, as I decided the 9500 offered little to justify the additional cost. I mostly print colour, so talk of a slightly larger gamut and more vibrant colour from the 9000's dye ink helped sway me that way too.

I've been more than impressed with my 9000, and with the mk 2 now available for ~£250 with the cashback offer, I'd say it represents fantastic value.

I don't print a lot of B&W. I understand that the 9500 is better suited to that, but I've been impressed with the B&W I have printed on my 9000.

I'll recommend the Ilford Galerie Smooth papers - I've had some great prints on them - and you can download profiles for them from Ilford's website.
 
Thanks for that John S. Very helpful.

Cheers for the interesting comments everyone.

Dave.
 
If your poor at planning or occasionaly have a printing frenzy, have a look at local avaliability of the inks. Quite a few supermarkets and stationers stock ink for the 9000, but 9500 cartridges are 24-48 hour delivery for me
 
Hmm, ouch.
I was thinking that I would keep a set of cartridges unused at all times. I do this currently for my printer.
Then I was wondering how many prints you would get from a cartridge. Some people suggest 10-20 prints....
This page suggests ~$1.9 per A3 print. (half that for exchange rates, and that is how much it costs to get DSCL to do an A3).
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing-canon-pro9000-pro9500.html

Would I ever be in the position where I need to produce 30 A3 prints, possibly not. Still kinda pricy though.
 
I was actually thinking of the Epson R2880 and the main reason I went off the Canon is that is past experiences I have always found it hard to calibrate screen to Canon output and it has always been easier with Epson.

Having said that I haven't purchased the 2880 yet, so would be happy to be proved wrong.

Also someone told me that the Canon 9500 MKII has a roll feeder on it like the Epson for doing panoramics, but I couldn't find anything online about that. can anyone confirm???

Cheers.
 
wanderer said:
Also someone told me that the Canon 9500 MKII has a roll feeder on it like the Epson for doing panoramics, but I couldn't find anything online about that. can anyone confirm???

Cheers.
Click to expand...

As far as i'm aware you can't use roll media on either the 9000 or 9500.
 
You can't use roll media in my 9000 mk2

Wanderer

I was actually thinking of the Epson R2880 and the main reason I went off the Canon is that is past experiences I have always found it hard to calibrate screen to Canon output and it has always been easier with Epson.
Click to expand...

What problems did you have, I just chose Canon glossy and used Lidl paper. Colours where almost bang on. Even profiles with a spider print they didn't get noticably better ?
 
so long as the printer will accept longer paper than A3+ you can use roll media (obviously not attached to the printer). Even though my R2400 takes a roll on the back I cut the paper first makes it easier to print

ChrisH said:
You can't use roll media in my 9000 mk2

Wanderer



What problems did you have, I just chose Canon glossy and used Lidl paper. Colours where almost bang on. Even profiles with a spider print they didn't get noticably better ?
Click to expand...
 
I have been looking around, and some people seem to state that the driver itself is limiting custom paper sizes to 26" (still a good 10" longer than A3 though)
 
Thanks for the feedback guys... yes you could rig up something I guess to feed the paper, but I'm not sure that's quite what I want to do.

I will probably go for the Epson R2880 and later get a PermaJet CIS as they advertise having the K3 pigment ink.

Cheers,
Damon.
 
coldpenguin said:
Hmm, ouch.
I was thinking that I would keep a set of cartridges unused at all times. I do this currently for my printer.
Then I was wondering how many prints you would get from a cartridge. Some people suggest 10-20 prints....
This page suggests ~$1.9 per A3 print. (half that for exchange rates, and that is how much it costs to get DSCL to do an A3).
http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing-canon-pro9000-pro9500.html

Would I ever be in the position where I need to produce 30 A3 prints, possibly not. Still kinda pricy though.
Click to expand...

I tend to just order a replacement cartridge for mine when the driver reports one down to about half full. If I printed more though, I'd think about keeping a stock of at least a full set.

I don't doubt that it costs more to print photos myself (unless ordering just one or two at a time works out to be a bit heavy on delivery charges... I don't know, I've not looked), but the convenience of just being able to decide "I like that... it's getting printed" means I print more than I would if I'd to get someone else to print them.
 
fotospeed also do a CIS which is the same price and you get a free A3 pack (50 sheets) of gloss, satin or luster paper with it.

wanderer said:
Thanks for the feedback guys... yes you could rig up something I guess to feed the paper, but I'm not sure that's quite what I want to do.

I will probably go for the Epson R2880 and later get a PermaJet CIS as they advertise having the K3 pigment ink.

Cheers,
Damon.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Poah I'll check it out.

Do you know though how their ink compares to the PermaJet K-Chrome stuff?

It looks like they also have a special on.

Cheers.
 
I went through the same, and went for the 9000. I print lots of B&W and the results are superb. I previously had an HP B9180, and the 9000 is superior for B&W imo. Colour prints are equally as impressive - it's simply a very very good printer when used correctly (i.e. decent paper and correct profiles for the paper, plus calibrated monitor).

I did a fair bit of reading around the subject and came to the conclusion that the difference between dye and pigment inks is rather a moot point now. Have a read: http://www.ink2image.com/files/Photo_Techniques_article.pdf
 
To those that have gotten the 9000, are there any sample papers in the box? (Set of inks seems to be listed, but no paper?)
 
pigment inks all the way. You pay for what you get.
 
POAH said:
they last longer than 5 mins in sunlight
Click to expand...

EOS_JD said:
pigment inks all the way. You pay for what you get.
Click to expand...

Have you guys read the link in the post above (quoted below) ? Do you have any comments on it ?

py6km said:
I did a fair bit of reading around the subject and came to the conclusion that the difference between dye and pigment inks is rather a moot point now. Have a read: http://www.ink2image.com/files/Photo_Techniques_article.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Hodders said:
Have you guys read the link in the post above (quoted below) ? Do you have any comments on it ?
Click to expand...

I didn't see that. My experience with inks was on a canon printer aboutr 5 years ago and prints were not waterproof - a small drop of water ruined the print - that was never the case with the pigment inks on the Epson R2400.

I guess things have improved over the years but my comment stands - you get what you pay for :)
 
EOS_JD said:
I guess things have improved over the years but my comment stands - you get what you pay for :)
Click to expand...

Please don't think I was trying to be clever or to make you justify your viewpoint.

I agree with you that you very much do tend to get what you pay for. But I was of the opinion that pigment inks were better than dye inks in terms of stability but the article above was very interesting I just wanted to see what you thought of it and get a couple of second opinions.
 
Last edited:
could not be arsed o read the whole article but sone of why is written is true other stuff is not so true IMHO. pigment lasts longer than dye and you'll be hard pressed to notice any colour gamut difference on a print. dye does look more glossy though
 
Hodders said:
Please don't think I was trying to be clever or to make you justify your viewpoint.

I agree with you that you very much do tend to get what you pay for. But I was of the opinion that pigment inks were better than dye inks in terms of stability but the article above was very interesting I just wanted to see what you thought of it and get a couple of second opinions.
Click to expand...

Hodders - I didn't think that at all and my post wasn't meant to sound sarky or anything. :)
 
POAH said:
could not be arsed o read the whole article but sone of why is written is true other stuff is not so true IMHO. pigment lasts longer than dye and you'll be hard pressed to notice any colour gamut difference on a print. dye does look more glossy though
Click to expand...

Don't blame you. :)

However, I did read it, and several others, which was why I was wondering why people were still choosing pigment over dye.

The impression I have gotten so far, is that the colour range is greater (in general) with dye based inks.

And in general, the quality of dye based inks, when used with 'qualified' papers, had improved a lot over the last few years.

To the extent, where a dye based ink, could be expected to withstand say at least 30 years of being around.

I am thinking, for the majority of what I would want (and possibly many other people), 30 years is a decent amount of time? Might out-live the DVDs that the images are stored on for a start.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top