Originally posted by: you2
Do you know how the MP970 compares to the IP4500 or MP610. I was originally leaning towards the 6700D which is no longer sold.
I don't own either the iP4500 or the MP610, though I did consider both. I haven't heard of a 6700D. I bought an iP4300 for my mother and used that from time to time when I visited. It's great and still ticking along nicely. Technically, the MP970 beats the iP4500 and the MP610 in terms of gamut (range of possible printed colours) because for photos, it uses four non-black inks and one black. The MP610 and the iP4500 use three non-black colours and one black for photos. All have a separate pigment black for text. The gamut difference won't be noticeable to everyone all the time but a direct comparison of wide-gamut landscapes or cityscapes will show a difference, as might prints that include caucasian skin tones.
The MP970 has the extended number of colours of the 6700D but the IP4500/MP610 has smaller droplet size.
As far as I know, droplet size is actually the same - all, including the MP970, use droplets as small as one pico-litre. Maximum print resolution is the same, too, though scan resolution in the MP970 is higher than the MP610.
The MP970's print head has fewer nozzles. Its resolution and droplet size are the same as the others' so I'm guessing that the print head is smaller and moves more to print the same area but someone here probably knows the right answer.
Also, how is cost per photo (and longevity) from the MP970 ?
Again, for photos, it should be the same for all current Canon photo printers - they can all use similar ink types (ChromaLife100) and print to the same types of paper so if you stick with genuine Canon ink and print on approved Canon paper, the predicted survival times before *any* noticeable degradation are: 10 years in the open air in daylight, 30 years under glass in daylight and 100 years in a high quality album. (These figures are predictions, calculated by using techniques designed to accelerate degradation, and they represent the length of time
before any visible deterioration sets in. The approved papers go from the regular "Glossy Photo Paper Everyday Use" right up to "Photo Paper Pro PR-101".
There a Canon PDF on testing methods and background here
here. Figures and info from Canon's UK site
here.
The figures compare very well to my experience of traditional lab photos in albums and to some HP inks but I believe Epson's pigment inks are some way ahead for longevity. (I've had it with Epson, though.) Canon's inks are still dye based, despite offering decent longevity. (Probably exceeding most traditional lab prints.)
My calculations for running cost were pretty positive using UK prices, which will, sadly, always be significantly higher than US prices, but they beat cost-per-page prices of cheap lasers. I got less than 2p/page printing greyscale text documents (invoices, etc.). The equivalent prices for cheap lasers (Xerox 6110, etc.) came out about 30% higher using similar sources.
The other advantage of the MP970, ethernet aside, is the ability to scan (albeit slowly) negatives and slides @ 4800x9600.