Which printer is right for you? The Canon PIXMA Pro-200 vs the Canon ImagePROGRAF Pro-300

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,672
4,166
Talk about stupid responses. A 160ml ink cartridge for the 2000/4000 can be had for $50 on flea bay. You would pay that much or more for a dinky cartridge in those machines. No problems whatsoever using sheet media - which costs way more than rolls from letter size to 17+”. If you don’t want to print large then don’t bother. From a value comparison, it’s difficult justifying $900 + ink costs to print small.

You clearly just got it. When you have owned it for a year or two come back and tell us the same....
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
From a value comparison, it’s difficult justifying $900 + ink costs to print small.
:)
It’s difficult to justify $4500 on a camera and lens combination just to shoot Flickr images of your cat but that’s the basis of many such sales !

Just out of curiously, if someone wants to print “small”, but also wants the best black and white reproduction, what printer would you recommend ?
 
Last edited:

Canonite

EOS R5
Dec 19, 2013
26
79
I bought the new Pro-300 as my Pro 1 died.
Printers are not for everyone, but looking at a high quailty print is not the same as viewing an image on the net.
As far as maintenance, I will print a small print every couple of weeks to keep the printer primed
I do like that the printer has a smaller foot print than my pro-1 and the software is easy to use.
Too bad ink is one of the most expensive liquids on earth.... But there are source for good quality ink in bulk.
And that source is not some Chinese crap that will clog or leak in your printer, or some crap of flea bay as some call it.

Some people think there is no difference between a cell phone image and an an image taken with a camera.. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sporgon

LDS

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 14, 2012
1,712
247
From a value comparison, it’s difficult justifying $900 + ink costs to print small.

Why? Many renowed photographers never made A2 prints or larger. While some adopted a style which included very large prints, especially when they became easily viable in the past thirty years or so, many others never felt that need. Still, they needed and need the quality they look for.

Why buy a far bulkier printer with features that would be rarely or never used?

Nor I understand those who buy expensive printers and then look for cheap inks of unknown origin. The quality of the print depends on the quality of the inks. If you have a reliable alternative supplier, and it costs less than Canon, the better. But getting random inks from eBay? It's just like putting cheap cards from never heard from brands in the camera. Or using cheap filters on expensive lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sporgon

LDS

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 14, 2012
1,712
247
if someone wants to print “small”, but also wants the best black and white reproduction, what printer would you recommend ?

Define "small" :) In the Canon line the best "small" pro printer for B/W is probably the ImagePROGRAPH 1000 - if it's still to large and expensive go for the 300.
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Define "small" :) In the Canon line the best "small" pro printer for B/W is probably the ImagePROGRAPH 1000 - if it's still to large and expensive go for the 300.
I’m using @armd ‘s description ;)
I guess that might be A2 :ROFLMAO:
I too am skeptical of the statement that $900 can’t be justified to print A2 and below.
Large size can be overrated; you are right in the fact in many photographic exhibitions the pictures are “small”.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LDS

rbr

EOS M6 Mark II
Sep 11, 2010
85
13
To me 13x19 is a great size. You can make dozens of prints and spend just a few hundred dollars a year on ink. They can be put in books to show people. Seeing a physical print has much more impact than anything you can see on a computer screen. Most people in the general public don't have high quality monitors. Larger prints are great but you start getting into another realm of expense with ink costs. I personally only have a few walls in my house where hanging larger prints is even practical. Large prints also take up more storage space and are difficult to transport. If and when I do make larger prints than 13x19 (only a few times a year) I will print out parts of it on smaller paper to see how it holds up, then take it to a lab. If you're not actively selling large prints, owning a printer to print A2 and larger prints can be a huge expense. Everyone has a different budget. The printers that print at 13x19 can be very rewarding to some people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LDS

LDS

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 14, 2012
1,712
247
Large prints also take up more storage space and are difficult to transport

I got also an A3 trimmer to cut the usual A4/A3 papers into more common photographic formats, and to cut boards to mount the prints too. An A2 trimmer starts to require a lot of space as well. If someone can dedicate enough space, maybe its own studio/workshop why not? Still many people have space constraints.

My prints are usually collected into boxes or books, and anything larger than A3 is uncomfortable. Prints to be hung on walls could justify larger prints, but I don't have my own gallery to exhibit them. Mounting large prints for display requires its own share of consumables and tools. Unless for someone it's enough to tape them somehow to a wall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbr
<-- start Taboola -->