Performance
One thing we can say about Canon printers: they're almost always faster than the competition. The Pixma iP4000 manages a brisk 6.69 pages per minute (ppm) when printing text (4ppm to 5ppm is about average) and an extremely fast 1.82 minutes per page when printing a 200x250mm photo, whereas many printers take more than 4 minutes to do this.
Competing printers typically come with a pigment-based cartridge and make a composite black for photo printing out of cyan, magenta, and yellow. In contrast, the iP4000 comes with a dye-based cartridge for photo printing and a pigment-based black for text files. The dye-based black does give the iP4000 an advantage over the competition, but the iP4000's output could still be a problem.
Text looks nice and dark at arm's length, but close inspection by a trained eye reveals a lot of feathering around the edges of the letters. Still, the average consumer probably won't notice the text blips and in fact might prefer the dark text, even if it means sacrificing some crispness. When we printed a mixed text-and-graphics document on high-resolution paper with the driver set to standard-quality/high-resolution paper type, the output looked much better. Black text elements were crisp around the edges, with no feathering visible to the naked eye.
In our test photos, the iP4000 did a good job of capturing tricky details such as the illustration on a postage stamp and the rivets in a robot suit, but we saw slightly more dithering and banding in the background than we'd like. Also, we saw visible dots throughout our test photos, which seriously affected the smoothness of skin tones. For truly excellent photo printing, check out the HP Photosmart 7960 or the Epson Stylus R800.
|
|
Photo speed |
|
Text speed |
CNET Labs' project leader Dong Ngo contributed to this section of the review.
Service and support
You can find free, well-written tutorials, FAQs, and downloadable manuals online. Canon provides e-mail support, but we got only automated responses to a few general questions. The Q&A troubleshooter helped to isolate our problem, though Canon could stand to expand the multiple-choice options. Overall, Canon's support site is useful and easy to navigate.
Addtional editing by Tom Espiner
User reviews3
Add your review
Roger Hodge 18 July 2005
Good: Quiet operation. Duplex printing. The price. The look.
Bad: Nothing yet.
Comment: Having had Olliveti, Epson (high maintenance) and HP (expensive ink cassettes) printers this is the best by far. The print quality is very good and the paper stack, of which there are two, means that it doesn't need filling so often. It's quiet operation allows it to be used late in the evening without disturbing the family. So far, three months, it seems to be cheap to run on ink. The duplex printing is really neat and avoids having to remove the paper and insert it again after turning it round to print on both sides of ther paper.
Keith Berry 7 June 2005
Good: Its output; trouble-free feed; quietness; ease of use; appearance.
Bad: Nothing so far.
Comment: I've owned my iP4000 for three months and I continue to be impressed by it, particularly after owning two Lexmarks in a row. I'm just not accustomed to placing paper in a feed slot and having it travel through the printer without having to prod it or pull it out of the works.
Printed text and diagrams are crisp and clear and digital photographs emerge looking just as good as they did on the monitor, without banding or stripes - remarkable. In 35 years of 35mm film photography I never had quality this good.
Paper can be fed from either the auto sheet feeder or the cassette underneath, and you can print on both sides of the paper automatically. There is also a plate into which you can insert a suitable type of CDR or DVDR for printing upon.
The nearest thing to a problem that I've experienced is when 6 x 4" photo paper in the cassette has curled up and blocked the feed, but the flashing LED code alerted me to it before it could jam. If I had to buy another printer right now I'd buy another one of these without hesitation.
Steven Heaven 17 May 2005
Good: Ok printer
Bad: Where do i start?
Comment: Not all that. Bit plastic. Not great quality. Never again!
See all 3 user reviews