Neo,
We have this round and round discussion; I had searched this forum. Let me summarize the various points on issues on this page:
1) I guess you do agree that Canon does boil/vapourize their inks in order to eject the inks. This is
not an urban myth, unlike your post #43 where you said "I said the boiling of the ink is a myth".
2) Gamut of pigment. Now, I look
not only by looking at the 3D charts of it (I use the very nice features on
http://www.iccview.de/ btw), I also hear independant reviews like those on Photo-i UK of printers like
R1800 and other comments on DPReview. Non of the reviews nor comments has mentioned that the pigment printers is restrictive on their gamut in use. In fact, in the Photo-i review, he said in the end of the review that "The print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph". On page four, it even showed the 3-D shape of the gamut
claim by Epson to be 97% of AdobeRGB. Unless Epson wants to be sued for false advertisment, I would think that the reality is close to that. Is that a small gamut? That is actually larger than many dye printers out there!
The dogma that you repeat that "I think Canon chosen dye inks as the platform for gamut superiority" 5 post ago, is opposite of what Canon has printed on its own website "With respect to color gamut, theres little difference between the W8200 pigment ink and W8200 dye ink models. Both are brilliant." Please explain this statement that is opposite of what you had stated.
3. Use of pigment inks. I had said in post #51 "Canon and HP does not use pigment inks and have no prosumer range of pigment printers" Note prosumer. It refers to those up to A3 prints or A2 prints that can be placed on tables like i9100, i9900 or 2100, R800, R1800. The prosumer range is usually less than $3k in price. The pro range OTOH, like the W6200 and W8200, or 7600, 9600, 10600 cost a lot more. I know that Canon's pro range can and do use pigment inks. That is why I had mentioned "prosumer" which is what most can afford here. Read carefully. As for the 8pl size drops, it is not to say that the drops are meant for distance viewing, but to explain why these pro printers can take pigment inks. Larger drops means the tubings or orifice can be more coarse, and thus, the pigment particles can be bigger and hence less issue with it being changed by being boiled.
On prosumer printers (like i9100/i9900), these printers are tasked to print from 4R up to A2 size prints. The smaller prints would need finer ink drops (as seen in the decreasing size amongst the iP series) would make it very difficult to stablize the pigment ink and yet get this suspension through fine enough plumbing to get to the 1-4pl drops needed to make these fine drops. Read up the Printer forum on DPReview yourself.
4. Longevity. The fact is that Canon's dye inks, even the BCI-7, in terms of longevity is not comparable at all. Check out the longevity of HP dye inks
here. The 8750, a prosumer (not a professional) A3 printer is using dye inks in conjunction with swellable papers.
5. Summary. I do not comment on opinions; everyone has one. But the statements that you give as facts are not correct in the first place. I am not "trying to lick my chops everytime I say something positive about Canon printers and dye inks". If you had mentioned that Canon is fast and that the inks are cheaper, these are (positive) facts and I would not have commented. But you have instead have mentioned your views and opinion as facts which are incorrect (the boiling and smaller gamut, etc)...