Printers on Trial HP B9180 v Canon Pixma Pro 9500

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having recently bought a Canon Pixma Pro 9500 and also having an HP B9180 at my French house, I thought some forum members might be interested in my thoughts of the comparison.

 

Firstly why did I buy the Canon? During my absence in South Africa for surgery, my computer room/digital darkroom has been taken apart and recarpeted/redecorated. Whilst reassembling, I have tried for a somewhat less cluttered and chaotic layout than formerly. I had been considering an Epson 3800 but when SWMBO (she who must be obeyed) said "how big????" I wisely reconsidered. The Canon has a very small footprint and folds up into a package not much bigger than some A4 printers. Secondly my HP in France has proved very fragile, I am now on replacement number 5. I believe that the ones built after August 2007 are better but you don't know the manufacturing date until you have opened the box and looked at the tiny date code painted on the back. No reseller is going to allow you to open printer boxes to find a late build one.

 

Now for the comparison:

Print quality colour: I think the Canon is at least as good and maybe a fraction better (sharper with finer colour gradation) than the HP on gloss and satin/pearl/lustre papers. I have had poor results so far from the Canon on matte (low contrast and muddy colours) but I have a feeling that is down to the Lyson paper which I have not used before. Black and white: The Canon seems to produce a sharper picture than the HP but the blacks are not quite as black and I don't think the gradation is quite as good. I have not however tried the Canon on Ilford Galerie Heavyweight Matte, which has brought my best results on the HP. However on the Canon, you don't get the pinkish tinge that on the HP you have to work around by switching off the colour carts in the printer set up. The Canon is much quieter with far less vibration but considerable slower than the HP. I would guess an A3+ print takes well over 50% longer than the HP. The HP is really very noisy and on a wooden floor can shake the whole room.

 

Printer size, build quality and set up. The Canon sets up very quickly compared to the HP but the on screen instructions are not as clear. I did not think I would like the top paper feed rather than the bottom tray that the HP has but after a few days, I now prefer it for the ease of changing papers. The support for large format papers is however very flimsy. The rest of the Canon seems very nicely made and somewhat better finished than the HP. The supplier I used said that they have had none back to date nor any reports of failures on the Canon. The HP as I said above, has been very fragile, mostly with failures of the paper feed system. HP have been very accommodating in replacing. The footprint of the Canon folded up is about 2/3rd or less of the HP. It uses quite small cartridges (14ml) against the 27ml of the HP. Ink cost per ml is about 15% higher. Ink consumption to date has been negligible but then my HP is very economical too in comparison to my earlier Epson R1800. The paper profiles on the print menu are irritating on the Canon, as many of the paper choices are listed by their Canon part number rather than a description. There is a key published on the Photo-i review site.

 

Conclusion. There is very little to choose between these printers. If I had the space and could be sure I was getting a post August 2007 model, I think I would go for the HP. Apart from anything else. it is about £100 cheaper. If you only have limited space and noise/vibration levels are important to you as in my case in the UK, the Canon is a good choice. I would not consider an Epson R2400/R1900 due to the requirement to return to base for print head replacement and high ink consumption.

 

Please feel free to PM me if you have any specific queries.

 

Wilson

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Venkman]

Thanks Wilson,

 

that really helps me deciding in direction of the Canon.

 

Much appreciated - Dirk

[hofrench]

One would have liked to hear more about B+W printing experience on the two machines.

I don't own the Canon, but have found the HP B9180 to be a fantastic printer for B+W. Fantastic.

You've noted questions of economy and paper settings, I think factors like these shouldn't be underestimated, both in terms of operating cost and convenience.

One concern on the HP machine. The manufacturer has apparently decided not to update its software for Photoshop CS3, meaning that one must print via CS3 and not through the HP plugin, which I found worked very well under CS2.

[wlaidlaw]

One would have liked to hear more about B+W printing experience on the two machines.

I don't own the Canon, but have found the HP B9180 to be a fantastic printer for B+W. Fantastic.

You've noted questions of economy and paper settings, I think factors like these shouldn't be underestimated, both in terms of operating cost and convenience.

One concern on the HP machine. The manufacturer has apparently decided not to update its software for Photoshop CS3, meaning that one must print via CS3 and not through the HP plugin, which I found worked very well under CS2.

 

Howard,

 

I would like to do a bit more printing on B&W before I comment further on the Canon. I too am very happy with the B&W on the HP, once I sorted out the pink tinges. Some people seem to have suffered this and some not - it may be paper manufacturer/paper profile dependent. I want to get a better matte paper for the Canon, maybe one of the Hannemühle rag ones, rather than the Lyson, which does not impress me one bit. I have found the printing with the HP on CS3 to be so good, I have not missed the plug in from CS2 but I agree, it is past time HP updated it. The plug in from Canon does work on CS3. It is very easy but a bit amateurish not the "pro" it is called. You can only select from about 6 preset profiles on the plug in against as many as you have loaded in your profiles library on CS3's own printer engine.

 

Wilson

[wlaidlaw]

I have done a bit more B&W printing on the Canon. Still not impressed with the Lyson Matt but have spoken to their very helpful product manager, who admits the coating on this paper is quite thin. It may therefore work less well on pigment inks. The Lyson satin is much better and I would now say that the B&W printing on the Canon is at least as good as the HP. It is slightly sharper/crisper but less easy to get the contrast right. You have to be very accurate with the contrast on the Canon as it swings quickly from too little contrast to too much. The HP is kinder and less critical.

 

Lyson have very kindly said they will write me a profile for their satin paper and I am sending off today, the test print to have the colorimetry done and the profile written. I am sure they would be happy for this to be passed on to any other Canon PP 9500 user. It should work with most very white satin papers as well as obviously, the Lyson but not with the creamier sort e.g. Ilford Smooth Pearl. However, as we already can download a profile from Ilford, that should not be an issue. PM me if you would like a copy for your 9500 and I send you one when I get it from Lyson.

 

Wilson

[evaroberts]

Well great there everyone.. recently i had hands on this model and found it very relevant and as the matter of fact i have already ordered and it will be approaching tomorrow at my door steps.. i am very excited about this HP model and hoping better results form it.

=============

eva

HP q6000a