- Up to 4,800 x 2,400 dpi resolution
- 4-by-6-inch photos in as little as 38 seconds
- 13-by-19-inch posters in as little as 3 minutes
- 8-color ChromaPLUS ink system for true-to-life color
- USB 2.0, Mac FireWire, PictBridge interfaces
I''ve had my i9900 since it first came out and I love it! Before this I had two Epson photo printers and was happy with them at the time but everything about this printer is better... The print speed is incredible, I haven''t had a clogged head yet (Epson owners will appreciate this), the individual ink cartridges are economical, and the print quality is phenomenal. Although I print more 4x6''s than anything, I''ve made several 13 x 19 prints and they look great. Genuine Canon ink cartridges can be bought for about $10.00 each if you shop around a bit. They last a reasonably long time and are a snap to change.
I only have two quibbles with this printer and neither is serious enough to affect its five-star rating... It doesn''t print on CD''s and you can''t make a borderless 8 x 10" print (you can make a borderless 8½ x 11" but my Epson handled both sizes).
I can''t speak to print longevity yet but I don''t expect it to be a problem. I never used Epson''s archival inks & papers and have not noticed any fading of those prints, even after 3-4 years hanging on my wall. I expect that prints made with the i9900 will be equivalent, which is fine with me. I don''t sell my prints so if in ten years a print has faded, I''ll simply make a new one.
One last thing... Although I usually don''t recommend using paper from anyone but the manufacturer of the printer, I''ve found that Epson''s Premium Glossy Photo Paper works fine with this model. You get a very slight shift toward yellow when compared with Canon''s best paper but can be easily adjusted out if desired. I mention this because I print a lot of 4x6''s and Epson''s 100 pack of their best glossy paper (S041727) is quite a bit cheaper than even Canon''s mid-line paper. Also, although the glossy surface on the Epson and Canon papers are near identical, the back of the Epson paper is smoother than the Canon''s, making the prints slide easier (and feel better) in your hand. This is a small thing but you may want to give it a try.
If you''re looking for a wide-carriage photo printer, there''s a lot to like with this one.
Update 6/30/2005: After living with this printer for nine months I''m still impressed. I''ve not had any problems, not even a clogged head (something I constantly had with my Epsons). I did stop using the Epson 4x6 paper and now use Canon''s mid-line "Photo Paper Plus" for my 4x6 snapshots. I make a lot of 4x6''s and don''t see any difference between this and Canon''s much more expensive "Photo Paper Pro" (I still use "Pro" for my larger prints though). One small complaint is that a few other photo printers do a better job producing neutral black & white prints. Lastly, I didn''t mention text printing in my first review because I have an HP for that. I have used the Canon for text documents on a few occasions and it does an Ok job but that''s not why people buy this printer.
Buy Canon I-9900 Photo Printer Now
I''ve had this printer since it was first stocked at compusa. so far, its''s been an amazing inkjet printer. I previously owned epsons (3000, 2200) which required lots of maintainance such as frequent head cleaning, tweaking with color profiles to get color matching, and having a designated computer as RIP print server. Canon is easy--direct connection to my computer via FireWire (or USB1/2). Straight out of the box, photo prints had relatively good color matching to what I see on my Apple Cinema display. Colors were a bit warmer and more saturated than what I would prefer. But they were still very good. It prints quietly and very fast (especially compared to Epson 2200 & 3000) . I wanted to get precise color matching to what I see on my screen. It took me about an hour to calibrate my monitor, set up color profiles, and adjusting only the color intensity on the Canon printer and printing with my custom color profile to get the colors nearly perfect.
I saw that some complained about the ink cost. Canon uses 8 inks and will run you about a hundred dollars to get all 8. BUT...it rarely uses Red and Green. Photo colors (PCyan, PMagenta) seems to run out pretty fast. If you have photoshop you can always adjust the color distribution in CMYK so that the printer uses more ink from black but and not from the four process colors. I looked at the prints under a loop and found that 2-picoliter droplets stay on the surface of the page. It seems like a lot of ink does not go on the page but they are tightly held together to produce excellent color and definition. Anyway, the cost of printing on this Canon is no more than Epson 2200.Text printing is so-so if you are printing direclty to the printer. It isn''t as tight and defined like printing through RIP. BUT. you can emulate this effect and get near perfect text printing by saving your doc as a PDF and then printing the PDF file. The result is amazing! Anyway, it''s an excellent printer. Get to know it well and it will treat you well.
Read Best Reviews of Canon I-9900 Photo Printer Here
All the good reviews of this printer are true. It''s fast, quiet, and the prints are amazing. But I just wanted to mention something VERY important some people. This is a DYE INK based printer. Not a PIGMENT INK based printer. That means your prints will fade over time compared to a pigment ink printer.
I have a photo that I''ve printed from the i9900 with the Canon Pro paper that is hanging in my office (which has florescent lights). After 6 months, the print has faded quite noticeably. The deep blacks are turning brown and everything else is changing colors. Now this print is not under glass. It''s just pinned up on my board. Glass will protect the prints longer.
If you are looking for archival prints that will last a long time (100-200 years by their estimates) get a pigment based printer. Epson''s Stylus Photo R1800 and R2400 are their 13"x19" printers in this class. Now if you are a Canon fan... Canon just announced that they are releasing two new printers this Fall (2006). One is the PIXMA Pro9000 which will use a better dye ink. The other is the Canon PIXMA Pro9500 which is going to be 13"x19" printer that finally uses pigment based ink. For more details, goto and these new printers will be listed there.
There is kind of a debate between dye and pigment inks. They both have their pro''s and con''s. Google "dye vs pigment" and you''ll come across some articles that go into detail and will help you determine what ink system will be right for you.
I have prints under glass that still look great. But I don''t know how they will last in the years to come. But walking into my office and seeing that faded print made me decide to sell my i9900 and either buy the Epson now or wait the the new Canon. Since I''m so impressed with every other aspect of the i9900, I''m probably going to wait till the Canon PIXMA Pro9500 is released and buy that system.
The bottom line is that a 13"x19" print can cost around $5 (ink and paper). Having it last is extremely important. I hope this helps. Don''t forget to Google those articles!
Want Canon I-9900 Photo Printer Discount?
I just purchased the Canon i9900 inkjet, and I just can''t restrain my enthusiasmit''s absolutely amazing! Literally within 15 minutes of getting it all set up I had several beautiful prints, including a gorgeous 13x19 incher. I had owned a very competent, but older, Epson photo printer (870), but I really wanted something that would show off the abilities of my digital SLR (Nikon D70-love it, by the way), and this printer certainly seems to do that. Unbelievable detail, perfect color, the ability to go big, and no flaws in image quality that I can see. I am certainly not a professional photographer (amateur hobbyist), but the only excuse I have now for poor pictures will be my own lack of ability.
The only concern I had about the Canon over the Epsons was its ability to print black and whites, but it seems to be doing a beautiful job with those as well. Admittedly, I have not tried it with all the papers, but I can vouch wholeheartedly for the Photo Paper Pro and the Plus Glossy papers. I haven''t had it long enough to comment on lightfastness or longevity. And yes, it is amazingly fasta thing you may not even appreciate until you live with it a while. It makes the printing process so much easier and enjoyable that I anticipate printing a lot more (I''m sure to Canon''s delight!). If you own a higher-megapixel camera you just haven''t lived until you''ve seen your pictures really sharp and really huge.
Pros:
-Image quality
-Speed
-Price (esp. compared to the Epson 2200)
-Image size
-It''s a handsome devil
Cons:
-Clunky paper feeding (but actual printing is very quiet)
-Price (compared to regular-sized printers)
-Not really sure where I''ll find a 13x19 frame (?)
Can''t comment yet:
-Ink costs
-Satisfaction with other papers
-Longevity and lightfastness (but the way I figure it, if it fades in a couple of years, I''ll print out another one!)
-Software (so far, so good)
Absolutely phenomenal print quality! That''s what it all comes down to and this printer, by far, produces the best quality prints I''ve ever seen. The colors just jump right off the paper.
Usually the old axiom, "garbage in, garbage out" holds true the majority of the time, but I''ve printed out some relatively crappy pictures (not mine of course ) that have looked decidedly non-crappy once ''transmogrified'' by this printer. Of course, this won''t work miracles, but it will allow you to get the best possible results from whatever your photographic labors have been. So if you spend a great deal of time and effort in composing and exposing your photos, then play with them for hours in Photoshop to eek out just the right tonal balances and colors, it really is a shame to print it on some run of the mill bargain printer. I was so impressed by this printer that I''ve gone back and reprinted all of the photos that I had in my house. Photos that I had previously thought ''perfect''. After reprinting them on the Canon, they really are even ''more'' perfect. :-)
I''ve been doing photography now for over thirty years. I''ve seen some relatively revolutionary changes in photography over that time, but until now I''ve lamented the fact that you couldn''t get a proper color print outside of the darkroom. This printer changes that. Which is an entirely good thing because color printing in the darkroom is a major PITA (+/1 degree tolerance in your chemicals, CYMK filtering, etc..).
I''ve gone through quite a few inkjets over the past six or seven years and was, until recently, very pleased with the output from my HP 5550. I knew it wasn''t top of the line, but for $99 a year ago, it was quite good. Then I got to thinking about all the time, effort and money I was spending on producing photographs, only to print them out on a so-so printer. I did extensive research and narrowed down my choices to the Canon i9900 and the 8450. Both use the _identical_ printhead and inks, but the 8450 only handles letter size paper and smaller. For an extra $150 I decided on the i9900 so that I could handle 13x19 and smaller. Well worth the extra money. The first huge 13x19 print you make of your favorite photo will convince you as well.
Okay, enough blathering, here are my impressions:
PROS:
unreal color quality
8 ink cartridges. 8 separate colors are responsible for the outstanding color, but also allow you to replace only the color cart that runs out (not only environmentally sound, but also saves you some coin in the long run).
FAST print speed
Relatively straight paper path (can handle heavier weight papers and doesn''t mangle the paper)
Exceptionally quiet
I''ve only used Kodak, Ilford and Canon papers, but the print quality was extremely similar on all of them. I''ve not had it long enough to comment on the fade-resistance, but Canon claims 25+ years.
CONS:
BIG footprint. Once you have the input paper support and output tray folded out, it''s like a satellite with its solar panels unfurled. Front to back is 34 inches. That''s right, just two inches short of a yard. 23 inches wide sounds small in comparison. 14 inches deep with the solar panels folded up isn''t bad, but you do need to unfold them when you print. This thing gives new meaning to desktop printing you need an entire desk for it.
Pricey. Perhaps I''ve just been spoiled by sub $200 printers, but it is a big leap to lay out $500 for an inkjet. Quality-wise, it seems exceptional. And of course, the end result of amazing prints is well worth it if you can afford it. And when you consider that I''ve spent over $2K on digital cameras and lenses, $4K on my Mac G5 and accessories, etc.., it seems silly to cheap out where the "rubber meets the road".
I don''t quite understand the need for a duplexing system on this type of printer. I would rather have that as an option and pay less for the main printer.
Black and white prints just don''t seem as good as darkroom results for the same picture. I believe this could be improved if Canon were to rewrite the drivers for this printer, but for now, I''m continuing my search for a good b&w inkjet.
So in conclusion, I really love this printer. Canon has really taken the lead in the photo-printing market and I can''t see anyone else catching up anytime soon.
