Canon Pixma Pro 200 - Projected Obsolescence

baumjwb said:

My experience with my Pixma iP4700 was one of forced retirement when the waste ink absorber could no longer be reset. It was still running and had not yet spilled any ink on the discardable board on which I'd placed it.

I'm looking at the Pixma Pro 200. Has anyone ventured or seen ventured an estimated functional lifetime for this printer?

Click to expand...

I cannot recall anyone ever claiming to have had a Canon Pro-100, Pro-200, Pro-10, or Pro-300 stop working because it decided that its waste ink-absorbing pads were too full. I'm not saying it cannot possibly happen; I am saying that it is at most a quite rare occurrence. In any event, it is almost certain not to occur before the printer is fully amortized by any reasonable standard.

By that I mean, if you use genuine Canon ink and reasonable-quality photo paper, you will almost certainly have spent many times as much on ink and paper as you did on the printer. In other words, you will have gotten your money's worth. If you print so much that you get to this point that worries you, then the cost of the old printer or its replacement is a very small fraction of what you'd spent on printing.

No mechanical device lasts forever, and printers are no exception.

1-Interesting, because all the years since the Pro-100 came out, I have yet to see a Pad Full post on this forum.

2-This is one area where Epson has always led and still does lead Canon-printers with user replaceable waste ink tanks.

3-Epson has 13" dye ink options with user replaceable waste ink tanks.

Some interesting comments here:


But I agree with N'Awlins. Paper and ink soon exceed the cost of a printer. I don't even fret ink costs. The finer papers are what is so expensive these days.

Even one of my favorite every day all-in-one office papers, HP All-in-One 22, has nearly doubled in price over the last year or so.

Gesture said:

1-Interesting, because all the years since the Pro-100 came out, I have yet to see a Pad Full post on this forum.

2-This is one area where Epson has always led and still does lead Canon-printers with user replaceable waste ink tanks.

3-Epson has 13" dye ink options with user replaceable waste ink tanks.

Some interesting comments here:

https://precisioncolors.com/PC65.html

But I agree with N'Awlins. Paper and ink soon exceed the cost of a printer. I don't even fret ink costs. The finer papers are what is so expensive these days.

Click to expand...

You're right that Epson has been ahead of Canon in building moderate-price printers with user-replaceable waste ink tanks instead of waste ink pads that are not designed to be user-replaceable.

In this specific area, I wish Canon designed printers more like Epson does.

However, I wonder how often that matters. I suspect only very, very rarely. In other words, IMO, when choosing a consumer or lower-end enthusiast printer, getting a user-replaceable waste ink tank instead of waste ink pads that are not designed to be user-replaceable would be somewhere around #27 on my list of priorities.

But for those seeking the ultimate dye ink printing with outstanding gamut and vibrancy, nothing beats dye ink. Here the Pro-200 is a winner over what Epson provides in the dye ink category. (don't; be foolish and mention the ET8550 please!) . If you are into entering photo contests and want the best color print currently the Canon Pro-200 is simply it. Epson need not apply. Of course those seeking the best will move on when something else comes forward so long term ownership and longevity is not necessarily at the top of the list. Performance is.

Yes, the Pro-100 is a nice alternative and actually better for many but those seeking the limits of what a "modern" print is Canon wins hands down. Both printers use the same printheads but the print engines are different and the performance differs as well.

A Pro-100 will typically provide about 30,000 8x10s ( Approximately 30 feet high stack of photopaper! ) before the pads are full when refilled properly but when OEM tanks are used and changed one at a time...the estimate drops to about 5000-6000 prints before the pads are full. The 200 should be less. Since the 200 and 100 use the identical printheads, replacement printheads will be available for the 100 until a few years after the 200 is replaced. Given the market, it is unlikely that the 200 will be replaced soon as retooling costs are very burdensome with smaller volumes today.

This should provide enough information as to how "long" these printers can last given proper use. I stress proper use because the majority of printers end their life because of too infrequent use and attention and lack of knowledge of what proper printer use is all about. They are treated like appliances but because of their complexity "things" are likely to crop up now and then. What it really comes down to is what type of use you want out of your printer? What use is your modern camera with super sensors and lenses and then output to something that limits the expression of what the camera captured?

mikling said:

But for those seeking the ultimate dye ink printing with outstanding gamut and vibrancy, nothing beats dye ink. Here the Pro-200 is a winner over what Epson provides in the dye ink category. (don't; be foolish and mention the ET8550 please!) . If you are into entering photo contests and want the best color print currently the Canon Pro-200 is simply it. Epson need not apply.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how this addresses the issue in the posts, but with great help from Keith Cooper, I did some comparisons of the Pro-200 with the Epson XP-15000 (and also the Pro-100 and an older CcMmYK dye-ink Epson), and the data show that, on the whole, the Epson XP-15000 has a slightly larger gamut, and slightly darker blacks, than the Pro-200. The thread starts at:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64999810

with updates at

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65003086

and the direct link to download the report is

https://app.box.com/s/3pqoxbij9b1orn0z1psvzskkacalekws

Yes, it depends somewhat on the paper. Yes, the differences found were relatively small (my own opinion--you can form your own opinions from the data).

But the claim that "Epson need not apply" is clearly incorrect. The XP-15000 is at least very close to, and arguably slightly ahead of, the Pro-200 in gamut and maximum black.

mikling said:

A Pro-100 will typically provide about 30,000 8x10s ( Approximately 30 feet high stack of photopaper! ) before the pads are full when refilled properly but when OEM tanks are used and changed one at a time...the estimate drops to about 5000-6000 prints before the pads are full.

Click to expand...

Putting aside the issue of how reliably these numbers were determined, and whether they pertain to borderless printing (which may fill the pads more rapidly), IMO if you've printed 5000, 8x10" prints, then it's pretty reasonable to say you got your money's worth. Even using the current Pro-200 price ($549 U.S.) versus the much lower amounts many of us paid for the Pro-100, that would be $0.11 per 8x10" print. Good inkjet photo paper costs $0.42 to $2.00 per sheet, plus the ink costs. In other words, the cost of 'using up' the printer's waste ink pads and thereby the printer is a very small part of the cost of inkjet photo printing.