New Pixma PRO-10 Review from Red River

Started Feb 10, 2013 | Discussions
MOD xrdbear Veteran Member • Posts: 3,919
Re: New Pixma PRO-10 Review from Red River

I somehow get the feeling after reading all their printer reviews that they are unlikely ever to produce a review of a printer they don't like. The iPF5000 review comes the closest but it's still pretty glowing. Useful as a quick summary though given how few reviews there are of printers.

-- hide signature --

Brian
Fine Art Print sales of the Isle of Skye at:
http://www.eyeofskye.co.uk/

jtoolman
OP jtoolman Veteran Member • Posts: 6,792
Re: New Pixma PRO-10 Review from Red River

xrdbear wrote:

I somehow get the feeling after reading all their printer reviews that they are unlikely ever to produce a review of a printer they don't like. The iPF5000 review comes the closest but it's still pretty glowing. Useful as a quick summary though given how few reviews there are of printers.

It does sound like they are trying to push just about every printer they review. Still, so good info for those who might be interested.

DotCom Editor Veteran Member • Posts: 7,214
Conflict of interest

I am NOT picking on Red River; it is an excellent company whose products I use. But, putting on my reviews editor hat for a moment, it is clear that a printer review from any company that sells paper marketed for use with that printer suffers from a conflict of interest. The paper company is not impartial; it has a vested interest in the printer being perceived positively. If the paper company says the printer is terrible, it is certain to sell much less paper for that printer than if it publishes a glowing review. Therefore, such reviews should be taken with more than a few grains of salt. There's a good reason why reviews should be left to qualified, impartial, third-party editorial staffs.

Again, no sleight is intended toward Red River, Moab, Legion, Harman, Ilford, Canson, Museo, Innova, Inkpress, or any other independent paper producer. Captive paper products, specifically from Epson, Canon, and HP, whose parent companies sell printers, are in a different realm altogether.

 DotCom Editor's gear list:DotCom Editor's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Epson Stylus Pro 3880 +3 more
jtoolman
OP jtoolman Veteran Member • Posts: 6,792
Re: Conflict of interest

DotCom Editor wrote:

I am NOT picking on Red River; it is an excellent company whose products I use. But, putting on my reviews editor hat for a moment, it is clear that a printer review from any company that sells paper marketed for use with that printer suffers from a conflict of interest. The paper company is not impartial; it has a vested interest in the printer being perceived positively. If the paper company says the printer is terrible, it is certain to sell much less paper for that printer than if it publishes a glowing review. Therefore, such reviews should be taken with more than a few grains of salt. There's a good reason why reviews should be left to qualified, impartial, third-party editorial staffs.

Again, no sleight is intended toward Red River, Moab, Legion, Harman, Ilford, Canson, Museo, Innova, Inkpress, or any other independent paper producer. Captive paper products, specifically from Epson, Canon, and HP, whose parent companies sell printers, are in a different realm altogether.

You do have a point!

I got this link as a email and I just thought I'd share it.

Tom-C Senior Member • Posts: 1,238
Re: Conflict of interest

But if the printer produced terrible results they would have an incentive to say so.

A person that bought a printer expecting great prints because Red River said so, would likely not want anything to do with Red River, or perhaps any home printing, if the prints were awful rather than great.

Reading the review it seems heavy on objective reporting of features with not a lot of judgement on their part. Well, other than the section on how wonderful their papers are with the printer.

If I were considering the Pro-10 I would find this review useful for its discussion of the printer's features.

Also useful is the printing cost results they have posted. $1.12 for an 8x10 when the Epson R3000 cost is $0.78.

My biases: I have lots of Canon cameras and lenses but no Canon printers. My printers are Epsons: 3880 and 7900. And I use roughly equal quantities of Epson paper and Red River paper.

Tom

 Tom-C's gear list:Tom-C's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
Sal Baker Forum Pro • Posts: 10,723
Re: Conflict of interest

Tom-C wrote:

But if the printer produced terrible results they would have an incentive to say so.

A person that bought a printer expecting great prints because Red River said so, would likely not want anything to do with Red River, or perhaps any home printing, if the prints were awful rather than great.

Reading the review it seems heavy on objective reporting of features with not a lot of judgement on their part. Well, other than the section on how wonderful their papers are with the printer.

If I were considering the Pro-10 I would find this review useful for its discussion of the printer's features.

Also useful is the printing cost results they have posted. $1.12 for an 8x10 when the Epson R3000 cost is $0.78.

My biases: I have lots of Canon cameras and lenses but no Canon printers. My printers are Epsons: 3880 and 7900. And I use roughly equal quantities of Epson paper and Red River paper.

Tom

Where did you see the printing cost results in the posted review?  How did they measure the cost per print?  I can't seem to find that in the article at all.

Sal

 Sal Baker's gear list:Sal Baker's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
bobh121 Regular Member • Posts: 317
Re: Conflict of interest

Sal Baker wrote:

Tom-C wrote:

But if the printer produced terrible results they would have an incentive to say so.

A person that bought a printer expecting great prints because Red River said so, would likely not want anything to do with Red River, or perhaps any home printing, if the prints were awful rather than great.

Reading the review it seems heavy on objective reporting of features with not a lot of judgement on their part. Well, other than the section on how wonderful their papers are with the printer.

If I were considering the Pro-10 I would find this review useful for its discussion of the printer's features.

Also useful is the printing cost results they have posted. $1.12 for an 8x10 when the Epson R3000 cost is $0.78.

My biases: I have lots of Canon cameras and lenses but no Canon printers. My printers are Epsons: 3880 and 7900. And I use roughly equal quantities of Epson paper and Red River paper.

Tom

Where did you see the printing cost results in the posted review? How did they measure the cost per print? I can't seem to find that in the article at all.

Sal

The cost results are here:

http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing-canon-pro-10.html

Some people may not agree with there methodology to calculate costs but they are consistent and a good way to compare different printers.

Sal Baker Forum Pro • Posts: 10,723
Re: Conflict of interest

bobh121 wrote:

Sal Baker wrote:

Tom-C wrote:

But if the printer produced terrible results they would have an incentive to say so.

A person that bought a printer expecting great prints because Red River said so, would likely not want anything to do with Red River, or perhaps any home printing, if the prints were awful rather than great.

Reading the review it seems heavy on objective reporting of features with not a lot of judgement on their part. Well, other than the section on how wonderful their papers are with the printer.

If I were considering the Pro-10 I would find this review useful for its discussion of the printer's features.

Also useful is the printing cost results they have posted. $1.12 for an 8x10 when the Epson R3000 cost is $0.78.

My biases: I have lots of Canon cameras and lenses but no Canon printers. My printers are Epsons: 3880 and 7900. And I use roughly equal quantities of Epson paper and Red River paper.

Tom

Where did you see the printing cost results in the posted review? How did they measure the cost per print? I can't seem to find that in the article at all.

Sal

The cost results are here:

http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing-canon-pro-10.html

Some people may not agree with there methodology to calculate costs but they are consistent and a good way to compare different printers.

Unless one expects their printer will never clog its a very unrealistic way to compare ink costs.

There is are no standard ink cost comparisons between brands of printers, only model to model comparisons that vary widely based on ink tank size.

More importantly, the linked comparison makes no mention of ink waste from maintenance and repeated head cleanings.  All of my previous Epsons used more ink for cleaning clogs and nozzle checks than ever went on the paper for actual prints.  The 3880 seems to be an exception for some reason.  The newer Canon wide format printers are reported to have few if any clogs.  I would love to see a real world comparison of Epson vs Canon WF printer TOTAL ink usage over a year.  Simply calculating the cost of ink used to make uneventful prints tells us nothing IMO.

Sal

 Sal Baker's gear list:Sal Baker's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
Dimitri_P Regular Member • Posts: 201
Re: Conflict of interest

Sal Baker wrote:

bobh121 wrote:

Sal Baker wrote:

Tom-C wrote:

But if the printer produced terrible results they would have an incentive to say so.

A person that bought a printer expecting great prints because Red River said so, would likely not want anything to do with Red River, or perhaps any home printing, if the prints were awful rather than great.

Reading the review it seems heavy on objective reporting of features with not a lot of judgement on their part. Well, other than the section on how wonderful their papers are with the printer.

If I were considering the Pro-10 I would find this review useful for its discussion of the printer's features.

Also useful is the printing cost results they have posted. $1.12 for an 8x10 when the Epson R3000 cost is $0.78.

My biases: I have lots of Canon cameras and lenses but no Canon printers. My printers are Epsons: 3880 and 7900. And I use roughly equal quantities of Epson paper and Red River paper.

Tom

Where did you see the printing cost results in the posted review? How did they measure the cost per print? I can't seem to find that in the article at all.

Sal

The cost results are here:

http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing-canon-pro-10.html

Some people may not agree with there methodology to calculate costs but they are consistent and a good way to compare different printers.

Unless one expects their printer will never clog its a very unrealistic way to compare ink costs.

There is are no standard ink cost comparisons between brands of printers, only model to model comparisons that vary widely based on ink tank size.

More importantly, the linked comparison makes no mention of ink waste from maintenance and repeated head cleanings. All of my previous Epsons used more ink for cleaning clogs and nozzle checks than ever went on the paper for actual prints. The 3880 seems to be an exception for some reason. The newer Canon wide format printers are reported to have few if any clogs. I would love to see a real world comparison of Epson vs Canon WF printer TOTAL ink usage over a year. Simply calculating the cost of ink used to make uneventful prints tells us nothing IMO.

Sal

What is really missing from these tests is a "clog test" which if anyone ever devised such a test, and published the results Epson would wake up their lawyers

 Dimitri_P's gear list:Dimitri_P's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-500 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 Canon Pixma Pro9000 Mark II +2 more
Petruska Veteran Member • Posts: 8,388
Canons hardly clog...

Sal Baker wrote:

bobh121 wrote:

Sal Baker wrote:

Tom-C wrote:

But if the printer produced terrible results they would have an incentive to say so.

A person that bought a printer expecting great prints because Red River said so, would likely not want anything to do with Red River, or perhaps any home printing, if the prints were awful rather than great.

Reading the review it seems heavy on objective reporting of features with not a lot of judgement on their part. Well, other than the section on how wonderful their papers are with the printer.

If I were considering the Pro-10 I would find this review useful for its discussion of the printer's features.

Also useful is the printing cost results they have posted. $1.12 for an 8x10 when the Epson R3000 cost is $0.78.

My biases: I have lots of Canon cameras and lenses but no Canon printers. My printers are Epsons: 3880 and 7900. And I use roughly equal quantities of Epson paper and Red River paper.

Tom

Where did you see the printing cost results in the posted review? How did they measure the cost per print? I can't seem to find that in the article at all.

Sal

The cost results are here:

http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing-canon-pro-10.html

Some people may not agree with there methodology to calculate costs but they are consistent and a good way to compare different printers.

Unless one expects their printer will never clog its a very unrealistic way to compare ink costs.

There is are no standard ink cost comparisons between brands of printers, only model to model comparisons that vary widely based on ink tank size.

More importantly, the linked comparison makes no mention of ink waste from maintenance and repeated head cleanings. All of my previous Epsons used more ink for cleaning clogs and nozzle checks than ever went on the paper for actual prints. The 3880 seems to be an exception for some reason. The newer Canon wide format printers are reported to have few if any clogs. I would love to see a real world comparison of Epson vs Canon WF printer TOTAL ink usage over a year. Simply calculating the cost of ink used to make uneventful prints tells us nothing IMO.

Sal

so the RR cost per print is fairly accurate.

Ask Jtoolman, he has quite a few Canons and refills them with 3rd party inks.  He has never complained aobut clogging.

I have 3 Canons that I currently use and they have never clogged, one sits for months sometimes and perfect nozzle check on startup.

My Epson R2880 is another story, more prone to clogging.  My R3000 have never clogged.

I agree that auto cleans affect the cost per print, but all printers auto clean at some point so it's all relative to the cost per print.

Bob P.

Sal Baker Forum Pro • Posts: 10,723
Re: Canons hardly clog...

Petruska wrote:

Sal Baker wrote:

bobh121 wrote:

Sal Baker wrote:

Tom-C wrote:

But if the printer produced terrible results they would have an incentive to say so.

A person that bought a printer expecting great prints because Red River said so, would likely not want anything to do with Red River, or perhaps any home printing, if the prints were awful rather than great.

Reading the review it seems heavy on objective reporting of features with not a lot of judgement on their part. Well, other than the section on how wonderful their papers are with the printer.

If I were considering the Pro-10 I would find this review useful for its discussion of the printer's features.

Also useful is the printing cost results they have posted. $1.12 for an 8x10 when the Epson R3000 cost is $0.78.

My biases: I have lots of Canon cameras and lenses but no Canon printers. My printers are Epsons: 3880 and 7900. And I use roughly equal quantities of Epson paper and Red River paper.

Tom

Where did you see the printing cost results in the posted review? How did they measure the cost per print? I can't seem to find that in the article at all.

Sal

The cost results are here:

http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing-canon-pro-10.html

Some people may not agree with there methodology to calculate costs but they are consistent and a good way to compare different printers.

Unless one expects their printer will never clog its a very unrealistic way to compare ink costs.

There is are no standard ink cost comparisons between brands of printers, only model to model comparisons that vary widely based on ink tank size.

More importantly, the linked comparison makes no mention of ink waste from maintenance and repeated head cleanings. All of my previous Epsons used more ink for cleaning clogs and nozzle checks than ever went on the paper for actual prints. The 3880 seems to be an exception for some reason. The newer Canon wide format printers are reported to have few if any clogs. I would love to see a real world comparison of Epson vs Canon WF printer TOTAL ink usage over a year. Simply calculating the cost of ink used to make uneventful prints tells us nothing IMO.

Sal

so the RR cost per print is fairly accurate.

Ask Jtoolman, he has quite a few Canons and refills them with 3rd party inks. He has never complained aobut clogging.

I have 3 Canons that I currently use and they have never clogged, one sits for months sometimes and perfect nozzle check on startup.

My Epson R2880 is another story, more prone to clogging. My R3000 have never clogged.

I agree that auto cleans affect the cost per print, but all printers auto clean at some point so it's all relative to the cost per print.

Bob P.

Cleaning "at some point" is dramatically different than cleaning all the time.  Friends of mine who have Canon 8300s never have clogs.  If you read the posts here and on other forums about Epson 4900s, users are poring expensive ink down the drain trying to clear head clogs.    Even within the Epson family the cost per print with my (never clogging in 3 years) 3880 must be dramatically lower than 4900 and large format Epson printers achieve.

I don't see how anyone can say this huge variable doesn't affect the cost per print.

Sal

 Sal Baker's gear list:Sal Baker's gear list
Ricoh GR Fujifilm X-E2 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R +2 more
jtoolman
OP jtoolman Veteran Member • Posts: 6,792
Re: Canons hardly clog...

Petruska wrote:

Sal Baker wrote:

bobh121 wrote:

Sal Baker wrote:

Tom-C wrote:

But if the printer produced terrible results they would have an incentive to say so.

A person that bought a printer expecting great prints because Red River said so, would likely not want anything to do with Red River, or perhaps any home printing, if the prints were awful rather than great.

Reading the review it seems heavy on objective reporting of features with not a lot of judgement on their part. Well, other than the section on how wonderful their papers are with the printer.

If I were considering the Pro-10 I would find this review useful for its discussion of the printer's features.

Also useful is the printing cost results they have posted. $1.12 for an 8x10 when the Epson R3000 cost is $0.78.

My biases: I have lots of Canon cameras and lenses but no Canon printers. My printers are Epsons: 3880 and 7900. And I use roughly equal quantities of Epson paper and Red River paper.

Tom

Where did you see the printing cost results in the posted review? How did they measure the cost per print? I can't seem to find that in the article at all.

Sal

The cost results are here:

http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing-canon-pro-10.html

Some people may not agree with there methodology to calculate costs but they are consistent and a good way to compare different printers.

Unless one expects their printer will never clog its a very unrealistic way to compare ink costs.

There is are no standard ink cost comparisons between brands of printers, only model to model comparisons that vary widely based on ink tank size.

More importantly, the linked comparison makes no mention of ink waste from maintenance and repeated head cleanings. All of my previous Epsons used more ink for cleaning clogs and nozzle checks than ever went on the paper for actual prints. The 3880 seems to be an exception for some reason. The newer Canon wide format printers are reported to have few if any clogs. I would love to see a real world comparison of Epson vs Canon WF printer TOTAL ink usage over a year. Simply calculating the cost of ink used to make uneventful prints tells us nothing IMO.

Sal

so the RR cost per print is fairly accurate.

Ask Jtoolman, he has quite a few Canons and refills them with 3rd party inks. He has never complained aobut clogging.

I have 3 Canons that I currently use and they have never clogged, one sits for months sometimes and perfect nozzle check on startup.

My Epson R2880 is another story, more prone to clogging. My R3000 have never clogged.

I agree that auto cleans affect the cost per print, but all printers auto clean at some point so it's all relative to the cost per print.

Bob P.

To elaborate on the Canon Pixma PRO 9500MKII, regardless if you turn it off or leave it on all the time. If you print after the printer has been idle for a few days, it does about a minute's worth of ????. It might be agitating the carts as it causes the bench it is on to slightly wiggle left and right. I have not really oppened the lid as I really don't want to interfere with what its doing.

THe PRO 9500MKII carts have a set of internal pallets that live inside the ink bag that is contrlloed by a metallic bellows like plate. What I have heard it that the back and forth shaking of the print head, causes those pallets to move inside the bag thus agitating the ink. Is it also doing a cleaning cycle? No clue.

As far as clogging? My 9500 is about 2 years old. ZERO clogs so far, and I refill my OEM carts with IS inks, and with this specific printer, I use it about once every three months. I do run a nozzle check about every one to two weeks.

So when you ask about whether the ink Cleaning clucles should be included, if we were talking Epson, then yes, but I can not remember a single clog in either 9500 or 9000MKIIs in two years.

I have not seen drops in ink levels that I would contribute to auto cleans either.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads