Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (
-   Photo Inkjet (
-   -   ip4000 v ip5000 (

davy Jan 2, 2005 1:59 PM

Hi, still confused here as I'm also considering a Canon printer, I read reviews after reviews and there's wee conflicts one way or another.

Anyone out there can put me at ease between the ip4000 & ip5000, also heard that the ip's puts a mark on the paper when used in duplex (guess you just wouldn't use duplex on hi-q photos - nor would you drop photo's on the floor)!

Also heard the the 5000 was better at text and graphics and not as good as pictures, seeing the resolution's better how come the piccys are not as good as the 4000.

I want a printer to replace my C62. I got mine last year, lasted 6 months when it was xchanged cos of print head defects, the xchanged one has just gone the same way - printing coloured lines on text and black lines on pictues with a yellow cast outside the edges of the pictures. MY ADICE IS NOW TO STAY AWAY FROM Epson & 'CHIPPED CARTRIDGES'.

bilirubin Jan 6, 2005 9:56 AM

Hi Davy,

I am not in a position to answer your technical questions as I am fairly new to printing my own pics, however I bought an ip5000 a couple of weeks ago and I am very pleased with the results.

I have printed off some 6"x4"and 7"x5" prints taken on a Nikon Coolpix 3100 (3 Million pixels) and the quality is as good as anything I have had processed at a pro lab, in fact I think they are better.

I experimented with a couple of shots and printed then out A4 size and once again considering the camera the quality was fantastic.

I used the Cannon pro gloss paper that came free with the printer so I cannot speak for other papers.

I have justbeen givena Nikon D70 Digital SLR for Christmas by my wife so I am hoping that with a better camera plus the extra pixels my prints will be even better.

If you can stretch to the extra money myadvice would be get the ip5000, you will not be disappointed.


davy Jan 9, 2005 10:54 AM

Hi billrubin,
Many thanks for your reply, sri if I'm a little late in replying. I apppreciate your reply, guess Im reading too many reviews. PC mag review stated that it was better at text & pastels whilst the photo quality was one step lower that the 4000 - very confusing and odd I thought.
Not really into photography but like doing the odd onr hear asnd there - I wish you well with the new printer and the new camara (all I know about em' is they take piccy's). Yep still considering the 5000 to replace my Epson C62 ink guzzler.
Thanks gain

Paul_D Jan 9, 2005 1:11 PM

I haven't seen the PC mag review but suspect some magazines recycle equipment tests amongst themselves. Perhaps the bad iP5000 results compared to iP4000 all trace back to one printer or one mistake by sombody without the required experience in Photo printing. Vincent Oliver at Photo-i got great results from an iP5000, does his own tests and is a photographer.

tcchou71 Jan 11, 2005 1:08 PM

I also bought the pixma iP5000, and haven't found any problems with pixelation.

I also readthat review that said the 5000had worse photosthan the 4000. I think that's wrong,and thatthe confusion is because the highest print quality is strangely difficult to select in the 5000 driver. You have to select "photo paper pro", then "custom" quality, then move the slider to the far right. Once you do that, the pixels become so small you need aloupeto see them. If you don't do all that, you'll get the second highest quality, which, based on photo samples I've seen in stores,is probablyequal to the 4000's highest.

mccoady Jan 11, 2005 3:44 PM

I've also been anxious to hear the responses to this thread since I have an ip5000 on order. I was going to buy an ip4000 but despite the reviews I just figured the ip5000 just had to be a little better. I see where some have mentioned it comes with a sample of Photo Paper Pro glossy so I guess I should use this but where's the cheapest to order it online?

Also since I have little experience in setting up printers for best prints will just doing what tcchou71 said enable me to come up with good looking photos (with this printer) without any other adjustments?

davy Jan 11, 2005 6:14 PM

tcchou71 Hi,
Many thanks for the response. I guess what you said is about right - so hard to understand that it does pastels beutifully (according to the review) and having a lower quality photo than the 4000.

And in this reply may I thank you all for the reply, The review in question is the one by David Stone in PC Magazine, which I don't think I'd mentioned. Photo-I review is well worth seeing as they compare it against other printers using the same pictures, the review in Photo-I along with the help of members of this forum as convinced me that the ip5000 is better, so this is the one that will replace my "clogger of an ink guzzling C62"

Comp625 Jan 11, 2005 11:53 PM

Just a heads up - I read somewhere that the IP5000 only utilizes the 1 picoliter thing when used with Canon Photo Paper Pro (with the papertype chosen in the drivers). It prints at 2 picoliter (like the 4000) if you choose Canon Photo Paper Plus in the drivers.

I don't know if that's true or not but take it for what it is worth.

tcchou71 Jan 12, 2005 3:06 AM

To Comp625:yesthat's right, it only uses 1 picoliter when you select photo paper pro. However, you can selectthat paper typeeven if that's not the paper you're using. Any glossy paper seems to work; the printer won't know the difference, and photos come out fine as far as I can tell. I suspect Canon does this for marketing reasons (to sell pro paper).

That said, I find that the second highest quality setting is still very very good.In fact, out of the box, the Pixma 5000 driver defaults to "standard" quality, its THIRD best. Even that is acceptable,except forslight pixelation in large areas of solid color, but I have to hold the photo 6 inches from my face to see it.

After reading this thread, I tried to figure out what PC magazine actually did for their tests. They certainly didn't use the highest quality setting, because that takes about 4 minutes per photo, and they report2:06 per 4x6" photo.Based on the time they report, I believe theyused the 5000's second best setting,and compared it to the 4000's best. Nonetheless, I don't see the posterization they report, and from what I've seen of the 4000 (admittedly only samples in stores), the 5000's second best is equal to or better than the 4000's best in terms of pixelation.

clem Jan 12, 2005 9:39 AM

I called up my computer supply store and asked him this very same question. He called me back some time later and told me that he tried it out and thinks that the 5000 is better than the 4000. I mentioned the PC review, but he said that nothing like that was mentioned in his Cannon tutorial sessions. :-)Anyway, coupled with what you all have said, i think i'll go with the 5000. Now.... i wonder is the 5000 better than the Epson r310...

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2