Pixma Pro 100 or 300. And Mac OS (Page 2): Thank you! I appreciate the feedback and your opinions.

BobPliskin

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

I searched very hard for a new pro 100. I found a... (show quote)

Thank you! I appreciate the feedback and your opinions.

Machinedoc Loc: Yorktown Heights, NY

I have a 100 that I have used with my Macs without a problem - in addition, Canon has a plug-ins for Lightroom and Photoshop that make printing more seamless. The plug-in is called Print Studio and it works very well for me!

BobPliskin

Great ! Thank you!!

azphotog Loc: Arizona

I am on my second Canon Pixma Pro 100 and used the first one on both Windows and Mac. Both worked fine on either OS. The only reason I had to buy the second printer is because I transported the first first one with cartridges installed which leaked. There was ink everywhere and I would not clean out.

PCL92

The 300 is 17" printer. Prints B+W better than the 100 or 200. It also has more inks.

Josephakraig

bsprague wrote:

I'm not sure you can buy a Pro-100. They appear to be discontinued at regular retailers. It seems to be replaced by the Pixma Pro-200 for the Canon dye ink version. Isn't the imagePROGRAF PRO-300 the new dye ink printer?

I have had the pixma Pro dye and pigment ink versions. I have thrown away my dye based printer after changing one of my prints to a different frame, the picture had faded very noticably over a period of only a few years. The Pigments don't change nearly as much and last a couple hundred years before you can notice any change.

I use the Pixma Pro-10 but have had it a few years now, I'm not sure which models are the pigments now but suggest you check.

BobPliskin

I have read that dye inks fade but are better on glossy paper. Pigment ink do what you say but are better on matte and other rougher surface paper. What’s your experience?

Jrhoffman75 Loc: Conway, New Hampshire

Josephakraig wrote:

I have had the pixma Pro dye and pigment ink versions. I have thrown away my dye based printer after changing one of my prints to a different frame, the picture had faded very noticably over a period of only a few years. The Pigments don't change nearly as much and last a couple hundred years before you can notice any change.

I use the Pixma Pro-10 but have had it a few years now, I'm not sure which models are the pigments now but suggest you check.

Were you using Canon OEM inks?

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Jrhoffman75 wrote:

Pro-300 is pigment printer.

You wrote what I meant to type and you are right. I've never been sure if I like the pigment ink version better or not. The dye ink version seems that it might be "brighter". Both will last longer than I will.

I've been very happy with my Pro-100 dye ink printer.

Jrhoffman75 Loc: Conway, New Hampshire

PCL92 wrote:

The 300 is 17" printer. Prints B+W better than the 100 or 200. It also has more inks.

300 is 13 inch printer. Difference between 200 and 300 is dye vs pigment ink.

Jrhoffman75 Loc: Conway, New Hampshire

bsprague wrote:

You wrote what I meant to type and you are right. I've never been sure if I like the pigment ink version better or not. The dye ink version seems that it might be "brighter". Both will last longer than I will.

I've been very happy with my Pro-100 dye ink printer.

Dye inks seem to be better with color images on glossy paper; pigment better for monochrome images.

A Pro-100 printing a color image on Platinum Pro glossy paper results in stunning images.

Camlane Loc: North Carolina

BobPliskin wrote:

Good info, Thanks! If given the choice, would you upgrade to the 300? Do you use it as a wireless printer?

Yes, I use it wirelessly.

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

Drbobcameraguy wrote:

< snip > I have no need for the pro300 and dye inks because I dont print enough to not worry about head issues. < snip >

FWIW, I've used a pair of Pro-10 (pigment) printers for the past 4 Christmas seasons to make ~1000 B&W prints each year that get bound into books for various family members. Printing occurs in December, and the machines basically sit unused for the rest of the year. They have never failed to fire up and print normally when asked, using both OEM and third party (Precision Colors) inks.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Jrhoffman75 wrote:

Dye inks seem to be better with color images on glossy paper; pigment better for monochrome images.

A Pro-100 printing a color image on Platinum Pro glossy paper results in stunning images.

"A Pro-100 printing a color image on Platinum Pro glossy paper results in stunning images."

It sure does.

I first tried color printing in a wet darkroom using a Beseler two part chemical system. I had drums to 16x20 on an electric roller. I still have some prints and they aren't nearly as stunnin. The workflow now, from camera, to SD card, to computer, to Lightroom to Canon Pixma Pro is so much easier! Instead of hard work, locked in the dark, it is fun play. The results are far better too.

The dollars involved are interesting too. While I was in the Navy flying around Asia I acquired cameras and lenses. At the same time I designed the "perfect" home darkroom. When they let me out, I probable spent about $5000 in contraction materials, plumbing and assorted components. Today I have a $1000 computer, a $100 (after rebate) printer and a subscription to Lightroom/Photoshop. I never buy film or chemicals. To top it off, if I press a different button on the camera, it makes videos!

Life is good.

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

In a word- the canon printers are really only geared for the microsoft software.I found out the hardway;
My computer bloke, who is extremely good at what he does, spent the best part of an afternoon trying to set My Pixma Pr0 1 up. He did it finally, by going deep; he said that the canon set up manual was the worst he had ever come across. The Pixma pro 1 was possibly the best, and the most awkward printer I ever owned; it was very expensive to run, always wanted to flush the cartridges everytime i used it. I found out that a lot of guys running this model had the same problems; superb output, not worth the hassle and cost to run - they just ditched it.
After 5 years, it conked out, and was not worth the repair cost.