So, I thought I'd do a review of the Canon Pixma ix6550 printer, because I recently had to replace my old printer (which was a Canon Pixma ix4000) and I did the normal thing of looking online for reviews and making my mind up about which printer to replace it with, but there weren't too many reviews done by individuals, they were mostly done by reviewing companies, who know what they're on about, but they have to consider a lot of things for the general public when reviewing stuff, whereas individuals can review stuff based on what they want of it.
As I say, I had a ix4000, and it was great.
By the way, I'm a graphic designer. When I bought the ix4000, I was at university. The main reason I bought the ix4000 was because it was one of the printers we had at my university and I really liked it. Plus, our tech guy was really good, and he seemed to like the ix4000's, so they must have been alright (big up, Tim).
The ix4000 was really great. It printed photographs really well and to a high resolution, and they looked as good as ones you can get done at photograph developing places, and those places are really the benchmark, being the only real alternative, so I can honestly say that it printed some very good photographs.
It could also print on thick paper, I think the thickest I ever printed on was 270gsm, which it handled no problem. And it printed on it well, there was no noticeable difference between getting it to print something on 270gsm (thick paper) and normal office paper. The only differences were down to the paper being crap in the normal office paper case.
It was a big printer, very big in fact, I struggled to find somewhere for it to go in my university room where I could still connect it to my mac to use it. But I think it was a normal enough size for what it was. Most A3 printers are pretty big, by their very nature, having to print on A3 sized paper.
Anyway, my point is that the ix4000 was brilliant, I loved it, it got me through so many projects, it printed my 137 page book which I did as my Major Research Project as university, all on 260gsm paper, all in brilliant inkjet colour, and with some borderless pages. I liked the way it looked, too, it's a big old grey beast, it looks like it can do the job, it looks serious and almost industrial in style. The big semi circle buttons on the front (of which there are only two, facing back to back to make a circle) added to the simple, grey, totalitarian design, which I thought looked pretty damn good.
This is an ix4000
But my lovely ix4000 died the other day, and so I had to find a new printer to replace it with. The one I went for is actually the replacement for the ix4000, but that's not why I chose it.
I wanted a printer equally as good as my ix4000, if not, better. It had to be around £150. It had to have reasonably priced replacement ink cartridges. And I wanted it to look good. As I say, I'm a graphic designer and so I like things to be aesthetically pleasing to me, this makes me feel more comfortable with things, it's just the way I am.
I looked at a few Canons, a few Epsons, a HP or two. I looked at various reviewing websites, and a few blogs.
I kept coming back to the Canon Pixma ix6550. It was a confirmed excellent printer. Able to print super photos, to print on up to 300gsm paper (which was an important consideration for me), it was better than it's predecessor, the ix4000, the ink cartridges were reasonably priced, and so on.
But it looked wrong.
It looked flimsy, and shiny, and commercial. I wanted a hardcore, designer's printer, like my ix4000. A few reviews confirmed that the printer has a 'flimsy feel to it', and the shiny plastic got finger printy easily. This put me off, and I spent hours online trying to find an alternative.
This is my ix6550. Sorry about the hideous amounts of red boxes, I almost
published this blog with an amusing about of personal information on
display in the photos, and I couldn't be bothered to take more photos,
so I thought some bright red boxes would be nice.
Alas, I couldn't.
Canon, for some reason, have decided to make all (what I would call) their low and mid range printers, shiny. Black, sleek, shiny, almost Apple-esque. Why? I have no idea. Maybe so that not just designers would buy their ix4000's, maybe so that designers would want them for their quality and their abilities, and so that the general public would want them for their looks, fickle as the general public are with these kinds of thing.
Canon's higher end printers, the likes of their Canon PIXMA Pro 9500 Mark II and their ix7000, are not shiny. Presumably, this is due to the fact that no matter how fickle people can get about having a shiny thing, no one other than hardcore designers, artists, businesses, printing enthusiasts etc, are going to pay £330 - £600 for a printer, therefore, they remain dignified in their style.
I was not in a position to spend £330 - £600 to spite Canon and leap frog over to the admittedly more covetable higher end printers. So, I put my aesthetically minded mind away, and concluded that the ix6550 was a very good printer, it would do all the things my ix4000 could do, and more, and better, if only slightly, which was what I wanted.
So I bought the shiny but able printer, from Amazon for £162, slightly over budget, but there we go.
This is my ix6550 with the opening bits open. See how shiny? Not too finger printy, though.
This is it with all trays fully extended, it's rather large, but no larger than
my ix4000. You don't have to have these out this much, either
I was worried that it was going to be rubbish. That on paper, it could all the cool things and sound fantastic, and that maybe all the reviewers were idiots and didn't know what they were talking about. I worried that MY understanding of the gsm paper system, was different to everyone else's, and it wouldn't be able to print on anything but boring office paper. I was worried the shiny surface was a distraction from the underlying fact that it was a terrible, useless printer. I get crazy when I'm spending lots of money, it's a well known fact.
I can confirm for you now, that I was worrying for nothing. It is a very good printer, it is easily slightly better than the ix4000, not a lot better, but noticeably better. It is slightly flimsy, but not as flimsy as I thought. It doesn't feel like it will break under the strain of it's own printing, which is good. It's also smaller than the ix4000, which is nice. I've printed on 230gsm paper, which turned out very well. And I've printed on 270gsm photo paper, and the photos I've printed so far are amazing, the colours are fantastic and the quality is great.
The ix6550 uses 5 ink cartridges, C, M, Y and 2 blacks. As I understand it, the additional black cartridge is for photo printing, which from the looks of my photos, works well.
So there you have it, a review from someone who had an ix4000, and now has an ix6550. And can conclude for you, that the ix6550 is a very good replacement for the ix4000, if a little shiny.
I'd also like to address some points from other reviews, which I disagree with:
1. It doesn't come with a usb cable.
Whilst I agree that it's a bit of a pain for them not to state this is BIG BOLD LETTERS in the item description on all the various websites where it's sold, you shouldn't really assume it comes with one. My ix4000 didn't come with one. I think a lot of printers don't come with one. Also, a tip: get a 3 meter one, they're fun, I got one, and I can print from ANYWHERE (within 3 meters of my printer).
2. It isn't wireless.
This isn't a problem unless you're scared of wires, or you work in a large office/similar where wireless printing is important, in which case, you can probably afford a more expensive wireless printer anyway. I happen to quite like plugging my printer into my mac, it adds to the printing experience, it's like "printer cable engaged! Printing initiating!"
3. It isn't multifunctional.
That's a good thing. I hate multifunctional printers. If one thing dies on it, you have to send the whole thing off to get fixed. Not cool.
That's about it.
I thought I'd do a pro's and con's list, because those are handy and cool.
PRO'S:
- Super print quality (both photos and standard printing)
- Reasonable price for an A3 printer (£163 Amazon + free p+p)
- Reasonably priced replacement ink cartridges
- Smaller than other A3 printers
- Easy to set up (if you follow the instructions, which I know some people have an irrational fear of doing)
CON'S:
- SHINY SHINY SHINY
- A bit flimsy, but not as much as I thought by looking at it online
0 comments:
Post a Comment