on November 12, 2009
This printer, is fast and very quiet. It allows the size flexibility of being able to print up to 13x19, which is a great asset. However, and I am not sure if it is because I bought this printer used, but the paper feed is very annoying. It has a tendency of loading multiple sheets at once, printing crooked and paper jams are a constant occurrence. This can be avoided with this printer, if you feed the paper individually by hand. Also the ink goes REALLY fast, however the quality of prints are high.
on August 16, 2011
The printer itself seems fine. Support for roll paper would really put it over the top in making it a great photo printer for me.
At $200 off, it is well worth the price. Unfortunately, it looks like they are playing shenanigans with the rebates. Despite having provided a complete and accurate rebate submission, I receive a rejection letter claiming I had not included the UPC. I wrote back and sent them a copy of the scan I made of the UPC before sending it in.
This is a tactic a lot of rebate offers seem to use to reduce the number they have to honor. Just be prepared with copies of all your original submission materials and, know that you will likely have to submit twice. Shame on you, Canon. I expected better.
Amazon: if I don't get my rebate, you get this printer back, regardless of policies about accepting returns with removed barcodes. There will be no tolerance for dishonest business practices.
on August 28, 2013
This printer will cover all your needs. It has an amazing quality picture output and won't let you down. There are only two issues I have with this printer.
1) The ink is very expensive and doesn't last long. The ink carts do not last long in this and they are quite pricey to replace.
2) No wireless. For a $450 printer I would accept wireless. For that price you don't even get a USB cable that is required, so make sure you pick one up as well.
on January 4, 2012
I have been experimenting with a variety of custom papers, utilizing specific ICC profiles created by the paper makers. Color printing is of high quality and looks fine, but so far it will not produce Black & White prints that don't have a toning cast. If you are thinking about this printer for B&W, I would look at or get some samples before you purchase it. If I find a combination of settings and paper that will produce B&W properly, I'll amend this review, but for now, beware...
on September 21, 2012
I have been using this printer for almost a year now. I did not buy it on Amazon, but am posting here to vent a bit because I am really unhappy on how this machine is wasting ink and my $$.
I am a professional artist and use it to produce prints that I sell. To start, I will say that the printer does an excellent job on print quality. I would gladly give this printer 5 stars if it were not for Canon designing this machine to unnecessarily blow through as much ink as possible.
The problem is that the printer is designed to do print head cleanings under so many scenarios. Every time the machine does a cleaning it uses up a lot of ink from your cartridges. It cleans the head every time you power the machine on. It cleans the head every time you replace a single cartridge--this takes up ink from all eight cartridges. It even cleans the head if you open the lid in order to check on the cartridges for any reason--even if the cartridges only slide into view, but are not removed. The software only gives you a rough idea of how much ink is left in each cartridge, and so I was occasionally lifting the lid to see exactly how much ink I had left.
At full retail a set of cartridges for this machine is around $160.+ tax. I do not pay that, as I buy mine on ebay where prices are lower. But even there they are still expensive, and you often can't find the color you need at any better price than you pay in a stationary store.
I would be refilling my used cartridges, but read a review of the best available Canon compatible inks posted by 'PC World', and it concluded the following: compatible inks will produce a good quality print, but the issue is longevity. The difference was apparently huge, the Canon compatible ink holding up only a small fraction of the time that the genuine Canon inks do. They claimed to have done laboratory testing to reach this conclusion. Whether this result is accurate I am unsure, but as I am selling prints I feel obliged to use inks that I know to provide an image with good longevity. So I am still paying the ridiculous prices charged for Canon genuine cli-8 cartridges to feed an ink hog.
I only found out this morning (after phoning Canon to verify my suspicions) that just opening the lid and causing the cartridges to slide into view triggers the cleaning cycle, which uses up a lot of ink. I was wondering because a 1/3 full Cyan cartridge went almost to empty after only running the nozzle check a couple of times (which uses very little ink)--but I had also opened the lid a couple of times. There is nothing in the owners manual to inform/warn you about this feature. The Canon rep told me that nozzle checks do not trigger cleaning, but I am not sure because every time I activate the nozzle check the printer first goes through some sort of noisy, lengthy series of internal functions that sound like cleaning. I run the nozzle check if I am not using the machine for over a week to keep the print head from drying out. So anyways, I am once again off to ebay to find ink.
I suspect that Canon is deliberately designing these machines to use up ink as quickly as possible in order to maximize profits. I think I now know all the things that trigger the cleaning cycle--maybe. I asked the Canon rep if the machine triggered a cleaning whenever I walked within 5 feet of it, my telephone rang, or a bird flew by my window just to be sure.
If anyone knows of a compatible ink that provides equivalent quality, longevity, and won't ruin the printer head, please send that info in a comment. I did ruin the print head on a Canon i9900 using Canon 'compatible' ink.
So, in summary the print quality is great, but this machine seems designed to waste your ink, and your $$. Maybe if I can avoid the endless unnecessary cleaning(s) in future things will improve.
**I recently was searching for a Canon compatible ink that would not damage the print head, or clog it up, and would produce good quality images.
An inkjet info site recommended 'G and G' ink. I can't find the site in my bookmarks--perhaps it is on my other comp--if I can ind it I will add it to this review edit. I ordered some from 'Inkgrabber.com' (you nay be able to find it on Amazon as well--certainly other sites carry it) and have printed around 30 13x19 prints with it. The MarkII takes 8 color cartridges--I was only using PM and PC that were not Canon Genuine ink, but the results were good. I will continue to experiment with more of the GG ink as my Canon inks run out. They did not cause any issues with my printer thus far. Cost/cartridge was around $6.I think.
One issue that 3rd party inks have is longevity, and are prone to fading more quickly. I suspect most of this is due to lower resistance UV exposure, and thought the following might work: 'Golden art supplies', a highly reputable are supplies company (mainly paint and mediums), manufacture a UV blocker in brush on or spray can form. They have told me it will greatly extend the lifespan of art by protecting it from fading. I may experiment with some of this on the prints I am producing as a way to overcome any fading issues.
on September 27, 2014
Excellent prints but it will drain you of money on consumables. I don't print that much but when I do the Canon prints reliably beautiful prints. I don't know how archival they are but my previous Canon Pro 9000 (immediate predecessor of this one) prints did NOT last well when exposed to much light - like they would fade some after a couple of months. You can mount under glass or spray UV protecting finishes but that is VERY tedious and expensive.
MY GRIPE: I swear almost EVERY SINGLE TIME I USE THIS PRINTER it tells me I am low on ink. I mean EVERY DAMN TIME!!! I only print maybe 10 sheets (mostly B&W, not much color) at a time and then maybe nothing for a few weeks or longer. Maybe the inks are evaporating?
Anyway, it has gotten outrageously absurd.
I have spent multiple times the cost of the printer so far in maybe 3 years on inks. Ink sets cost at least $100 (I use Canon inks since I have not liked "compatible" inks).
LAST STRAW. So today I decided to knock off a half dozen B&W prints and saw TWO inks were almost out. I'm SURE the last time I used the printer three weeks ago, those two inks were well over half full.
I'd never buy this printer again because I feel so totally outraged by the ink consumption. I mean every single time I turn the printer on and ask it to print something I get mad again because it is always warning me inks are very low. I am not kidding: EVERY TIME. I think my previous Pro9000 did much better. But that printer got zapped by a power surge (apparent cause) and I could not repair.
TOO ... DAMN ... MUCH. I cannot tolerate printer that makes me mad every time I use it.
on February 4, 2016
It prints great, does large format well. However, I have never been able to get the front tray to feed, the instructions don't match the printer. The rear feed is problematic. You have to bend the large format and push it up against the feed roller. Sometimes it feeds, sometime not. It shouldn't be this much trouble.
on January 12, 2014
This is a really capable machine, able to produce beautiful high quality prints that I use for my artwork reproductions. However, this printer is HUGE, in terms of size it takes up on the table, make sure you have adequate space for this monster. Also, the ink runs out quickly, if you're like me and need to run a couple test pages before you're satisfied with the print color quality that means a limited number of 'good' copies that can be used/sold and I only print on 11x17 papers. At $100.00 for a new full set of ink because it wont print unless all of them are adequately filled it's impractical to constantly shell out that much. It's unfortunate it's so expensive it really does a great job.
on May 16, 2013
I don't own one of these printers, but I have been using a new one at a museum I volunteer at. I have been thinking of buying a new 13"-wide printer myself, to replace an aging Epson 1280. So I was very interested to compare this new Canon vs my old Epson, to decide whether to buy one for myself or get an updated Epson model.
I think that they both produce equivalent print quality (and the latest Epsons would also), so I think that my choice would be based on ink usage, convenience, features, cost, etc.
One of the big annoyances of Epson printers is that the heads get clogged unless you use them a lot. So I was hoping to see an improvement in this area with the Canon.
I can say that I have NEVER had to clean the heads on the Canon. In fact, I don't even bother to do the nozzle-check pattern print, since it always looks perfect. This is very nice compared to my old Epson (and the new ones too, based on what I have read), where I had to perform numerous head cleanings and always have to do a nozzle check pattern print before any real printing. I should mention that I don't do a lot of printing, so this is a factor (heads stay unclogged if the printer is used a lot).
However, I have noticed that the Canon uses ink like you wouldn't believe. And when you first turn it on, it cranks away for several minutes, making all sorts of noises. I think that the Canon is actually doing a head cleaning in these circumstances, probably every time you turn it on (and sometimes after you have done a print). In other words, it is doing a "stealth" cleaning. So it keeps its heads clean this way, whereas the Epsons make you do it when needed. This is just an impression I have, looking at the way the Canon ink levels go down.
So I am now thinking that the Canon has no real advantage, ink-use wise. At first I thought that not having to do a lot of head cleaning on the Canon would save ink, but now I do not think so because it is doing it behind the scenes anyway.
I have just learned that this Canon printer cannot do a panoramic print wider than 23.9 inches (or somewhere in that range). This is REALLY pathetic and kind of unbelievable, considering that Windows itself allows 44 inches (and I think Win7 and 8 allow over 100 inches). My old Epson printer will do say a 10 x 36 inch print without batting an eye. And I believe the newer ones can do even wider. So this is a real show-stopper for me.
Nowadays, you'd think that Canon would get their programmers to write a better driver that would handle longer paper. As I say, it is unbelievable! Perhaps their thinking is that since the 9000 cannot use roll paper, there is no need to allow long prints. But this is foolish, of course, since you can easily cut a price of long paper from a roll and feed it into any printer. In fact, even though my Epson 1280 does do roll paper, I so seldom use it that I never bother attaching the roller add-ons. When I want to do a long print, I just cut the piece and feed it from the top as usual.
So those are my thoughts. When I do replace my Epson 1280, I think I will be getting another Epson and continue doing the head-clog dance. I had really high hopes for this Canon, but it doesn't do it for me, unfortunately.
on February 25, 2012
I properly submitted the UPC label and a copy of the Amazon invoice in order to receive the $100 rebate. I received a letter (who does that anymore unless they are trying to kill time?) saying that there was no invoice enclosed. I sent another invoice with a copy of the original form and a copy of the letter.
Today I received a letter saying that the claim was denied as there was no UPC label.
I have copies of all correspondence,
Its a good printer. Not so straight forward as other Canon products I have owned.
Too bad they throw out a rebate as bate when it is pretty apparent that they don't intend to pay it.