But before I get to that, let’s go over some of the basics. But a well-designed printer that also makes great prints is a combination that makes printing so much more enjoyable. Yes, great looking prints are what we want most of all, and the Pro-1000 doesn’t disappoint when it comes to print quality. In every way, I’m impressed with the quality of the prints and with the way the printer operates. I’ve also used it in several of my printing workshops with great results. I’ve been field-testing the Canon imagePROGRAF Pro-1000 for several weeks and have made hundreds of prints, from small 4×5 notes cards all the way up to A2 prints (17” x 22”). I’ve seen this in overall print quality and printer design and construction. I’ve made thousands of prints for myself and others on these printers, and I’ve been thoroughly impressed with Canon’s dedication to the printer market and their push to make each generation better than the last. Since then I’ve owned the 24” iPF6100, the 44” iPF8100, the 17” Pro-1, and my current workhorse the 44” iPF 8400.
And their printers match and in some areas exceed the competition. Their service and support remain the best in the business as far as I’m concerned. The ipf5000 had first generation issues, but Canon support bent over backward to make sure I was happy with the printer-I was impressed, to say the least. I took a chance and put my money on the new player in a field that had been dominated by Epson. I’ve owned Canon large format printers for over a decade, starting with Canon’s first foray into the market, the 17” iPF5000 introduced in 2006. I’m interested in what my eyes see, not what numbers or graphs show me. I am not interested in specs, but rather in making prints that best represent my RAW files and resonate with viewers.
I am not an engineer nor a pixel peeper, so this “field test” is not scientific but rather based on practical, real-world use.
0 kommentar(er)
