Most helpful customer reviews
36 of 36 people found the following review helpful.
Another "Perfect 10" from Canon's Photo works!
By R. Rosener
I was in need of a second photo quality printer. last Fall I bought a Canon i850 printer to replace my old Epson Stylus Photo EX. I was tremendously impressed with that printer's ability to make economical, lab quality photographic prints. The i850 only uses Cyan, Magenta, & Yellow color inks.
That printer is now on my daughter's iMac DV and still chugging along.
I very nearly bought the Epson 1280 photo printer, but when my students use it at college, I noticed several things that annoyed me:
The Epson guzzles color ink like Kool Ade! Although very high in quality, I get sick of tossing perfectly good ink carts when only one color is depleted.
Every 5-10 prints we have to run deep nozzle cleaning on the Epson 1280 which wasted even more ink. In the 8 months I've had the i850, it only required a nozzle check once.
So I looked at the newer Canon i960, and after reading several reputable reviews and talking to people who actually own it, I took the plunge....
No regrets. Set up on my OS X Mac was a breeze, and I really appreciate Canon's well drawn step by step set up poster included in the box.
I did not think that the i960 could match the Espon Photo 1280 for color fidelity-was I wrong! This printer can churn out an 8x10 that looks like a real photograph. The first thing I printed (after the alignment patterns-which you MUST DO to get top output...) was a scan from a 120 medium format Ektachrome slide. The 120 chrome is the standard for excellence. Lens was a Carl Zeiss Planar....the i960 print really did this German lens justice. The color and contrast were spot-on when printed from Photoshop CS.
Translation: This is a PRO quality color printer.
There is a lot of misinformation going around the web that Canon inks don't last as long as Epson's. NOT true. When printed on Canon Photo Matte paper, the print is guaranteed for 25 years.
EPSON, READ THIS: I will NEVER buy another Epson printer again! Canon's individual ink tanks have saved me $300.00 already....plus Canon lets me replace the printhead at home if there is a problem.
The i960 is super quiet. You can stack two paper sizes at the same time. It's amazingly fast, and can direct print from most Canon digital cameras.
A Superb product from a truly innovative company...what else do you need to know?
13 of 13 people found the following review helpful.
Capable of better & cheaper results than commercial labs
By Chris Devers
After shopping around for a month or so, my wife and I ended up getting the Canon i960 photo printer, and so far we're very happy with it. I bought her some prints from our digital cameras from Ritz Camera as a Christmas present, but now that we've got the photo printer, we've made fresh copies of some of the same images and the results from the Canon seem to be at least as good as the commercial prints, if not better. Plus, we have more control over how images are scaled & cropped when printing at home rather than having someone like Ritz or CVS do them for us.
One of the features that convinced us to buy this printer was the fact that the inks are sold separately. My hunch is that this should make the printer cheaper to operate in the long run than a printer with multi-color ink cartridges, but only time will tell if that's actually true. From some "back of the envelope" math, it seems like it's going to be roughly as expensive to print at home than to get them made commercially (we're estimating about $.30 per print either way), but the convenience & flexibility of having our own setup should make it worthwhile.
So far, we've tried running the printer with the sample Canon paper it came with, some Kodak glossy photo paper, and some mid-grade Epson photo paper. The prints with the Canon paper seem to look best so far, but the paper also seems to be one of the more expensive options available. The Epson paper looks almost as good, and it looks like we can find it much cheaper than the high end Canon stuff. The Kodak paper, on the other hand, has produced pretty disappointing results so far -- we haven't been able to get printouts that look as good as the Epson or Canon paper. Moreover, the geometry of the Kodak paper isn't as advertised: it's 6.5 x 4 sold as 6 x 4 paper; the printer is using about half of that extra length, but it's leaving a blank margin on one side of each print, and so far the supplied Canon photo software doesn't seem to be able to compensate for this.
So, I would recommend this printer, but not because it's a better deal than your local CVS/Ritz/Wal-Mart/etc's photo lab. At best, you're likely to break even with commercial printing. On the other hand, you can expect to get excellent image quality that's at least on par with the commercial labs, if not better -- but try running different kinds of paper through to figure out the results you'll be happiest with: the supposedly high end Kodak paper seems to be disappointing with this printer, but the Epson paper is more than satisfactory, and it currently seems to be cheaper than the Canon paper.
11 of 11 people found the following review helpful. See all 138 customer reviews...
Highest quality, good cost per print with great ink system
By B. Rutledge
I have owned several "photo" or mixed-use ink jet printers (including a HP 2200 series I got last year), and this produces the best output by far - true photo-quality when printed on Canon's "Photo Paper Plus - Glossy". Like most printers, the output is much better when using the manufacture's own paper (as opposed to the cheaper generic paper), but there is no need to buy the most expensive "Pro" paper as neither I nor my wife could discern ANY difference between the two. There may be a benifit to the "Pro" paper that cannot be seen (lasts longer?) but at almost twice the cost it is not worth it.
The part I like the best about he printer is the ink tank system - it uses 6 individual tanks made of CLEAR plastic so you can confirm with your own eye they are empty when the printer tells you they are (there will be a little unusable amount in the "sponge" portion of the tank, but NONE in the main tank section). Because the tanks are just ink (no print head like in most HP and others) the price of new tanks is quite cheap (no need to risk the printer or the quality with refills or generic ink); and because there are 6 individual colors you only need to buy the color you ran out of, rather than buying a new "color" or "photo" tank like I have to do with my HP whenever one color goes out. You DO go through some colors a lot more than others - while it will vary depending on what you are printing, after printing out several hundred 8x10s I have gone through 3 "photocyan" tanks, 3 "photomagenta" tanks, 2 "cyan", one "magenta", one "yellow" and am still on my first tank of the other 2 colors. In ink savings alone, I have paid for this printer, and you feel MUCH better when you can pull out that little tank and confirm you really did go through the ink (I have often had my doubts).
If you print a lot of 4x6 snapshots, there is a seperate feeder for them that you can even leave in place while printing 8x10 sheets (or you can just lift it out if you want to load more 8x10 paper, as it cuts down the amount that can fit). I can't say how it would work with printing text documents, as I use it exclusively for photos.
And if you work on a Mac, it works Great with OSX.