Canon Pixma Pro 9000 ii as 'professional' photo printer?

[june_daley]

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

Looking to buy the Canon Pixma Pro 9000 mark II, does anyone here have experience with it? Could it really be used as a professional grade printer to sell prints to customers?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for any opinions<br>

June</p>

[bobatkins]

You can sell prints to customers which have been printed on a much lower grade printer than the Pro 9000. Many people do. If you're worried about it, the 9500 isn't that much more expensive. It uses pigment based inks rather than dye based (and it has 10 inks rather than 8).

[june_daley]

<p>Thanks for the advice Bob - we did look at the Pro 9500 but decided we'd stick with dye based.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>I have also been evaluating the 9000 vs. the 9500 vs other brands, and am also thinking of the dye vs. pigment issue. </p>

<p>Playing the devil's advocate, but also looking for answers from you guys that have been printing on both dye and pigment: As the quality of the printers and the inks get better and better, and both inks' longievity (is that correct?) improves, does it really matter to the customer if the prints are rated to hold the colours in for example 150 (dye) or 200 (pigment) years? They (or we) are probably not going to be around to check anyway....</p>

[bobatkins]

If those were the numbers (150yrs vs 200yrs) then it would probably make no difference, but I think in reality the numbers are smaller, especially if you don't use UV blocking glass and even more so if the prints are unframed and exposed to direct sunlight.

 

For archivally mounted prints (made on archival materials) in frames with UV glass which are displayed under gallery conditions the difference between high quality dye and pigment ink longevity probably isn't a matter of concern (except to future generations).

[pcnilssen]

<p>Thanks for your info, Bob!</p>

[chris_letts]

<p>I trawled the net extensively a few months ago, and concluded that the 9000 was more highly recommended than the 9500.<br>

As for pigment versus dye, there seemed to be pros and cons for both so I pretty much ignored that aspect except I heard that dye inks were less prone to clogging if you don't use the printer regularly (I tend to batch my printing jobs and do them every now and then).<br>

So I bought one, and although I'm not using it for 'pro' purposes I do print A3 for myself and others for wall mounting (i.e. 'pictures') and I'm totally satisfied with the results in terms of colour and resolution.<br>

I cant answer the 'how long will the prints last' question (ask me in 10 years time) but I've no reason to believe that the technically shorter life will actually be significant.<br>

By the way I went for the 'old' 9000, rather than the mark II - seemed to me that the mark II was more expensive for very little extra, but not sure if you can still find the old ones...</p>

 

[june_daley]

<p>Hi Chris,</p>

<p>Thanks for your response - it's great to hear from someone who owns the 9000, although we are buying the Mark II. Sounds like it's a winner and I also heard the same thign about better results when using it infrequently.</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

June</p>