Canon Pixma Pro 100 - worth buying at this time?

[billtils]

I don't do a lot of printing. My "home" level Epson printer/scanner does a good enough job for most purposes and when I need a better quality print, for competitions for example, I send the digital file out.

From time to time I think about upgrading, to let me do it all in house with the advantage of being able to edit and redo if it looks like the print could be better. Comparing the cost of top level Epson and Canon photo printers to that of using the external company is a no-brainer for the volume of use, but I noticed that the Pixma Pro 100 is currently on sale with a cash-back offer that brings it down to the level of the better quality "home" options.

A quick search suggests that the model is at or near its end-of-life, and there is the double question of ink - often described as more expensive than rocket fuel, and if the printer is at end-of-life, how long can I expect the matching ink to be available? And lastly, one of the big attractions in buying one is that all the paper manufacturers have profiles for it.

Comments and advice appreciated.

[Donald]

I know nothing of Canon Printers, I use Epson. But if you do go for it, then also explore what is available by way of a Continuous Flow ink system; i.e buying a bulk system that sits outside the printer and constantly feeds the ink in.

I use Permajet's Continuous Ink system for an Epson R3000. The cost is significantly reduced and the quality of the ink is as good as Epson original cartridges.

[billtils]

Sadly not available for the Pro 100 Donald.

[DanK]

I have a Pixma Pro 100. It’s a superb printer. Its main disadvantage (assuming you don’t want something bigger) is that it uses dye based rather than pigment inks. These fade more quickly,although not for many years if handled right. I have been using canon dye printers for years and have yet to replace a faded print. Dye also has advantages—the colors are brilliant, and the inks are much more clog-resistant. None of the canon dye printers I have owned (numerous, because I use smaller ones for office work) has ever had a problem with a clogged head.

I print with a variety of papers (none Canon), and the results have been excellent with all of them.

Although I’ve been very happy with mine, I am thinking of splurging on a prograf 1000 to have the larger size and because I would be more comfortable selling pigment prints. However,I would not expect the results to look appreciably better.

I have not kept close tabs, but I have not found ink consumption or cost to be unreasonable. You can get estimates based on empirical tests on the Red River Paper website.

If you want one, look at the used market. Canon periodically bundles these with cameras. I got mine free with a 5D3 years ago. As a result, a lot of people get them and sell them cheaply on Craigslist and the like, sometimes still in an unopened box.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[billtils]

Thanks Dan. This is exactly what I was looking for, namely feedback from someone that I "know" from CIC, whose input I respect, and who uses (or has used) the 100s. It really didn't matter whether the feedback was positive or negative, only that it is reliable. I'll post this then get on to my local dealer and order .

[xpatUSA]

I have a Pixma Pro 100. <> None of the canon dye printers I have owned (numerous, because I use smaller ones for office work) has ever had a problem with a clogged head.

I second the comment re: clogs.

I use my Canon PIXMA MG8120 (all-in-one, 6 cartridges) two or three times a month, mostly black-and-white non-pictures.

The color cartridges sit there unused for months at time (I don't print my images) and nary a clog yet.

[DanK]

Bill,

I just got to my office, which as 9 prints from a pixma pro 9000II (the predecessor to the Pro 100) on the wall and one print taped to my office door that was either printed with that or with an all-in one. The 9 in my office, which probably range from 4 to 8 years old, haven't faded a bit. (All are framed, behind class.) However, the one on the door, which is just taped to the surface, seems faded and is definitely discolored, with a magenta cast. It's a puzzle, as there is no natural light, and hence no UV light, on that photo other than a bit from my office when I have the door open, whereas the 9 are exposed to daylight (not direct sunlight) every day. Perhaps I printed it poorly in the first place and the color never was right, although I doubt it. I also have no idea whether I printed it on my old multipurpose 940 or on the photo printer. I mention it because this may be an exception to my saying that I haven't had deterioration. However, if it HAS deteriorated, it is the an exception, albeit the sole one, to what I wrote above.

[Manfred M]

It's a puzzle, as there is no natural light, and hence no UV light, on that photo other than a bit from my office when I have the door open, whereas the 9 are exposed to daylight (not direct sunlight) every day.

I assume like most offices, yours has fluorescent lights? These are definitely a source of UV and this would explain what you are seeing.

[DanK]

I assume like most offices, yours has fluorescent lights? These are definitely a source of UV and this would explain what you are seeing.

Good point. Yes, the hallway does. My office does too, however.

All of the prints hanging in my office are in inexpensive Nielson photo frames. These come with UV-blocking glass. With a few exceptions, all of the prints I have at home are also behind UV glass. the ones that are not behind UV glass get no exposure to either fluorescent lighting or direct sunlight. All of the ones hanging at home look like new.

So, this may be the issue. Perhaps the correct answer is that if you use dye inks, expose prints for protracted periods to either direct sunlight or fluorescent lights and don't use UV glass, you may get deterioration within a few years.

I know that good pigment inks last many decades under good conditions. I don't recall reading what happens to them if exposed to UV.

[pendennis]

I've been using the Pro 100 for almost three years, and I'm very much pleased with its performance. I get excellent prints, and when I go for a while without printing, I don't have to go through the recalibration when it starts up again.

When I bought it, Canon was running a fairly large rebate, and included a couple of packages of Canon printer paper. By the time I finished, the out-the-door cost was around $130 USD, and the printer listed at $395. I figured the price may be a close-out, with a new model coming, but the Pro 100 is still around..

Yes, the inks aren't as hardy as pigment-based, but I haven't had any problems with fading.

You can avoid fading problems by using anti-UV glass instead of plain. It's a bit more expensive, but it does really help.

[Manfred M]

Good point. Yes, the hallway does. My office does too, however.

All of the prints hanging in my office are in inexpensive Nielson photo frames. These come with UV-blocking glass. With a few exceptions, all of the prints I have at home are also behind UV glass. the ones that are not behind UV glass get no exposure to either fluorescent lighting or direct sunlight. All of the ones hanging at home look like new.

So, this may be the issue. Perhaps the correct answer is that if you use dye inks, expose prints for protracted periods to either direct sunlight or fluorescent lights and don't use UV glass, you may get deterioration within a few years.

I know that good pigment inks last many decades under good conditions. I don't recall reading what happens to them if exposed to UV.

All inks, including pigment based inks, do fade over time. Anti-UV spray coatings and putting the images under glass significantly improve image life (i.e. they essentially double it).

[DanK]

All inks, including pigment based inks, do fade over time. Anti-UV spray coatings and putting the images under glass significantly improve image life (i.e. they essentially double it).

Shucks, Manfred, you just torpedoed one of my rationalizations for buying a new printer!

[george013]

A few years ago I printed some pictures on different papers and did put them in the window, direct sun light. With some of them the colors vanished very quick, another did last very long. Same ink,different paper. Don't ask me to explain it. I can't.

George

[DanK]

A few years ago I printed some pictures on different papers and did put them in the window, direct sun light. With some of them the colors vanished very quick, another did last very long. Same ink,different paper. Don't ask me to explain it. I can't.

George

Interesting. The one faded print is in a semi-gloss paper that I haven't used for years. My default for things on the wall is Moab Exhibition Luster, and those haven't faded

[rpcrowe]

I was using a Pixma Pro 9000 printer and the results that I got were quite decent. It was a bit fussy about which papers that I used. However, I got a Pixma Pro 100 printer as part of a package when I purchased my canon 6D Mark-2 but, sadly I have not set it up for printing yet...

[Manfred M]

A few years ago I printed some pictures on different papers and did put them in the window, direct sun light. With some of them the colors vanished very quick, another did last very long. Same ink,different paper. Don't ask me to explain it. I can't.

George

Papers have a big influence on print life. High quality archival papers are good for print life and low quality papers are not.

Lower end papers are often acidic (pH values of < 7), which breaks down the inks. Higher end papers have their pH adjusted so that they are pH neutral or slightly basic. They can also contain lignin, which is somewhat unstable and will yellow over time and sulphur from the chemical pulp making process; none of which is good for print life.

High end papers are often pH buffered and are sometimes cotton rag (i.e. not wood) based, so they contain no lignin.

[DanK]

I was using a Pixma Pro 1000 printer and the results that I got were quite decent. It was a bit fussy about which papers that I used. However, I got a Pixma Pro 100 printer as part of a package when I purchased my canon 6D Mark-2 but, sadly I have not set it up for printing yet...

You'll be pleased if you do any B&W. It is much superior to the Pro 1000 II in this respect (gray ink as well as black)

[DanK]

Papers have a big influence on print life. High quality archival papers are good for print life and low quality papers are not.

Lower end papers are often acidic (pH values of < 7), which breaks down the inks. Higher end papers have their pH adjusted so that they are pH neutral or slightly basic. They can also contain lignin, which is somewhat unstable and will yellow over time and sulphur from the chemical pulp making process; none of which is good for print life.

High end papers are often pH buffered and are sometimes cotton rag (i.e. not wood) based, so they contain no lignin.

This is a bit off track, but many years ago, my brother's mother-in-law patented a process by which oxygen rather than sulfur dioxide is used in the bleaching process. (She died years ago, and I may be remembering the details wrong.) When I first learned of this, the technology had begun to be used in Europe but not in the Pacific Northwest, where I lived at the time, and where sulfur dioxide plumes regularly fouled the air for miles around pulp mills.

I haven't thought to look to see whether one can even identify which photo papers are produced that way.

[loosecanon]

I still use my Canon 9000 II. I use non oem inks which I have nnever had a problem with, and at 5% of the cost of oem inks makes printing economic. I do use expensive papers, which is key to reasonable print life. I have never had fading even when exposed to light with good papers, but cheap paper I have had fade in a few weeks.

One advantage of Canon over Epson is the ability to easily replace the print head. I have a 9500 which just cost too much to use.

[DanK]

I still use my Canon 9000 II. I use non oem inks which I have nnever had a problem with, and at 5% of the cost of oem inks makes printing economic. I do use expensive papers, which is key to reasonable print life. I have never had fading even when exposed to light with good papers, but cheap paper I have had fade in a few weeks.

One advantage of Canon over Epson is the ability to easily replace the print head. I have a 9500 which just cost too much to use.

There are some good non-OEM inks, but I have stayed away from nonOEM inks because some that have been reviewed are very poor in terms of durability, and I haven't found reviews of most of them. It has been a long time since I looked, but I think the bad tests I read may have been on the Wilhelm site.

Re the cost: Red River's estimate of printing costs with the Pro 10 and OEM inks is here. Their average for an 8 x 10 was $0.875. On the other hand, that particular OEM ink has been rated as relatively durable. This was their conclusion:

The Canon PRO-100's cost of printing is more than we expected. Inkjet printing prices have been trending down in recent years, so the higher cost of this printer relative to similar models is a minor disappointment. Given the capability of the PRO-100 to offer on-demand results that are "better than lab quality", we think that the cost per print is still acceptable. Those shopping for a printer, particularily Canon devotees looking for long term fade resistance, should consider this printer.