Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: LawrenceBraunstein on October 09, 2017, 08:11:53 am
-
After eight years of dependable and relatively maintenance-free service, I finally needed to replace my Epson 3880. For reasons unrelated to my queries, I decided on the Canon Pro-1000 after years of experience purely with Epson printers. Generally speaking, I’m quite happy with the Pro-1000. However, having no experience with Canon photo printers, I’m noticing cleaning-cycle characteristics which appear curious in not somewhat excessive. Honestly, I’m not even certain they really are cleaning-cycles. I’m referring to cleaning-cycles between photos in the printing queue. Though I’ve experienced such cleaning maneuvers in the past with my Epson printers, they have always been seldom and quite intermittent, usually first happening after quite a few prints had already been made. Definitely not consistently between prints. Could someone please tell me if this is normal behavior for Canon printers. Also, what is really happening during those alleged ‘cleaning’ episodes. Are there user preferences which reduce the frequency of such cycles?
My second question concerns when to replace ink cartridges. With my Epson printers I usually waited until the printer stopped printing, replaced the appropriate cartridge, and continued printing. I’m aware that Canon’s ‘low ink warning’ messages appear very early. However, is it possible to continue printing until the cartridge is truly empty without ruining the print (as Epson printers are able to do)? I have received “ink may have run out” messages, but the word “may” leads me to believe Canon is perhaps trying to pressure me into an early cartridge change. Is there a way to be certain? In any case, thank you for any information or advice you may have!
With warmest regards,
Lawrence Braunstein
-
After eight years of dependable and relatively maintenance-free service, I finally needed to replace my Epson 3880. For reasons unrelated to my queries, I decided on the Canon Pro-1000 after years of experience purely with Epson printers. Generally speaking, I’m quite happy with the Pro-1000. However, having no experience with Canon photo printers, I’m noticing cleaning-cycle characteristics which appear curious in not somewhat excessive. Honestly, I’m not even certain they really are cleaning-cycles. I’m referring to cleaning-cycles between photos in the printing queue. Though I’ve experienced such cleaning maneuvers in the past with my Epson printers, they have always been seldom and quite intermittent, usually first happening after quite a few prints had already been made. Definitely not consistently between prints. Could someone please tell me if this is normal behavior for Canon printers. Also, what is really happening during those alleged ‘cleaning’ episodes. Are there user preferences which reduce the frequency of such cycles?
My second question concerns when to replace ink cartridges. With my Epson printers I usually waited until the printer stopped printing, replaced the appropriate cartridge, and continued printing. I’m aware that Canon’s ‘low ink warning’ messages appear very early. However, is it possible to continue printing until the cartridge is truly empty without ruining the print (as Epson printers are able to do)? I have received “ink may have run out” messages, but the word “may” leads me to believe Canon is perhaps trying to pressure me into an early cartridge change. Is there a way to be certain? In any case, thank you for any information or advice you may have!
With warmest regards,
Lawrence Braunstein
Canon PRO-1000 uses ink (a lot) for maintenance. A lot of info in this thread:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117644.0 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117644.0)
The ! ink warnings are very conservative. There is a lot of ink in the cartridge when the ! mark first appears. Use it until you see the X red mark.
-
After eight years of dependable and relatively maintenance-free service, I finally needed to replace my Epson 3880. For reasons unrelated to my queries, I decided on the Canon Pro-1000 after years of experience purely with Epson printers. Generally speaking, I’m quite happy with the Pro-1000. However, having no experience with Canon photo printers, I’m noticing cleaning-cycle characteristics which appear curious in not somewhat excessive. Honestly, I’m not even certain they really are cleaning-cycles.
With warmest regards,
Lawrence Braunstein
Lawrence, what exactly are these "cleaning cycle characteristics" you speak of?
-
Lawrence, what exactly are these "cleaning cycle characteristics" you speak of?
Mark, it sounds to me like the typical 'cleaning sounds' one hears when a nozzle cleaning is performed. The sequence goes as follows: one photo in a queue finishes printing, the sound of the air suction system stops, but before the next print is pulled into the printer, it goes through what sounds to me like a cleaning cycle which takes about a minute or more. After this, the next piece of paper is pulled into the printer. I often have quite a few prints waiting their turn in the queue which amounts to quite a lot of time (not to mention the cost of ink used for cleaning) 'lost' at the end of a long printing session. Any ideas what's going on?
Lawrence
-
Mark, it sounds to me like the typical 'cleaning sounds' one hears when a nozzle cleaning is performed. The sequence goes as follows: one photo in a queue finishes printing, the sound of the air suction system stops, but before the next print is pulled into the printer, it goes through what sounds to me like a cleaning cycle which takes about a minute or more. After this, the next piece of paper is pulled into the printer. I often have quite a few prints waiting their turn in the queue which amounts to quite a lot of time (not to mention the cost of ink used for cleaning) 'lost' at the end of a long printing session. Any ideas what's going on?
Lawrence
OK - I don't think it's safe to assume that these are cleaning cycles. The fact is we don't know what the activity really is. Amongst the possibilities: it could be the use of a small bit of CO for cleaning the platen, and/or could be the printer re-priming itself for the next print, and/or could be a cleaning cycle (of varying ink usage) depending on the response of a number of self-monitoring sensors in the printer. The only way to know how much ink is being used overall for how many square feet printed is to keep careful records of differences of ink inventory stock and flow over a sufficient time period, including measurement of the filling of the maintenance tank, number of replaced cartridges and changes to the fill status of the cartridges from start to finish of the measurement interval. It would indeed be nice if both Canon and Epson were more transparent about ink usage for maintenance.
-
OK - I don't think it's safe to assume that these are cleaning cycles. The fact is we don't know what the activity really is. Amongst the possibilities: it could be the use of a small bit of CO for cleaning the platen, and/or could be the printer re-priming itself for the next print, and/or could be a cleaning cycle (of varying ink usage) depending on the response of a number of self-monitoring sensors in the printer. The only way to know how much ink is being used overall for how many square feet printed is to keep careful records of differences of ink inventory stock and flow over a sufficient time period, including measurement of the filling of the maintenance tank, number of replaced cartridges and changes to the fill status of the cartridges from start to finish of the measurement interval. It would indeed be nice if both Canon and Epson were more transparent about ink usage for maintenance.
Many thanks, Mark! So, I may assume the machine is not behaving abnormally. I’ll learn to live with the time delay between prints. What about replacing supposedly empty cartridges? Are Canon printers similar to Epson in as far as allowing one to print until an ink cartridge is really empty (even if this happens during printing), replace the cartridge, and continue printing without having negatively influenced the quality of the print?
Lawrence
-
Many thanks, Mark! So, I may assume the machine is not behaving abnormally. I’ll learn to live with the time delay between prints. What about replacing supposedly empty cartridges? Are Canon printers similar to Epson in as far as allowing one to print until an ink cartridge is really empty (even if this happens during printing), replace the cartridge, and continue printing without having negatively influenced the quality of the print?
Lawrence
Right, based on what you describe this does not seem abnormal. And yes, do use the cartridge until you get a nag on the LCD telling you that it should be replaced.
-
Right, based on what you describe this does not seem abnormal. And yes, do use the cartridge until you get a nag on the LCD telling you that it should be replaced.
And the printer will not allow you to print until the cartridge is replaced. I always run a nozzle check after each replacement.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
And the printer will not allow you to print until the cartridge is replaced. I always run a nozzle check after each replacement.
Thank you, John! Keith Cooper over at ‘Northlight Images’ writes in his review of the Pro-1000 that empty cartridges which he literally took apart were, in fact, void of ink. However, knowing the printer will not allow me to print without cartridge replacement is important. I suppose switching manufacturers - particularly after so many years - always requires certain workflow adjustments.
-
............ However, knowing the printer will not allow me to print without cartridge replacement is important. I suppose switching manufacturers - particularly after so many years - always requires certain workflow adjustments.
I'm not sure what the adjustment is here. For all the Epson printers I've owned, when the LCD says a cartridge is empty it had to be replaced before resuming printing.
-
Are Canon printers similar to Epson in as far as allowing one to print until an ink cartridge is really empty (even if this happens during printing), replace the cartridge, and continue printing without having negatively influenced the quality of the print?
Lawrence
I've been an Epson Wide Format user since 2003, with 2-7600s(PK & MK), then eventually a 9900 for 7 years, and now a new P7000. Whenever I have printed an image where I had to replace a cart during the printing cycle I can plan on trashing that print and starting again. If it happens during the first few inches I simply delete that job from the que and change the cart. I know Epson claims that there is NO negative effect of changing a cart in mid print, but unless I'm printing on Matte paper I would not be able to sell that print to my customer. Now I will say that the severity of the issue does somewhat depend on where in the image the change is made, but at a certain viewing angle the "issue" is always evident. I print a lot on Epson Luster, and very little on Gloss, but the issue appears on both and cannot be overlooked. And again I would have to say that I've never seen it on any of the Fine Art Matte papers or the Matte Canvas I have used. As a description -- it appears that the printer, following a cartridge replacement, seems to go back over some of the image already printed and add a very small an mount of ink, which presents as a more obvious gloss differential in that 1/2" area of the print. It's also more obvious in a darker part of the image, but it is always noticeable. When I'm getting very low on a colour and need to produce a large print, I always replace the low cart for that print only, so that I won't have to trash it for the reason mentioned. I then of course replace the "low" cart and go on as usual, until the dreaded "X" appears and stops the printer completely.
And, this issue has presented itself on all of the printers mentioned above!
Gary
-
Not questioning what you've seen Gary, but I've never seen any such impacts with any of the 17" models I've used over the past 17 years - and I've looked. But as a precaution, nothing to lose implementing your procedure.
-
Not questioning what you've seen Gary, but I've never seen any such impacts with any of the 17" models I've used over the past 17 years - and I've looked. But as a precaution, nothing to lose implementing your procedure.
Hi Mark,
Question - How often do you print on Epson Luster? As I mentioned, I do a lot of Luster printing for my customers, and this issue always shows on Luster, especially roll stock. As a matter of fact I'm not sure I have ever had to replace a cart while printing on Luster sheet stock, just coincidence I suppose. And I also mentioned that it is sometimes very subtle, but if I can see it there's a good chance my customer will eventually. I wrote that I rarely print on Gloss paper, but I'll change that to almost never, due to the pronounced gloss differential with the Epson Glossy papers. The only 17" printer I've owned was an Epson 4000, and that goes way back. Perhaps somehow the 17" printers do not exhibit this phenomenon for some reason, but all of the 24" and the 44" Epsons I've used certainly did, and do. This is something that is very difficult to describe, but certainly not difficult to see when it happens. However, it is what it is and I shall leave it at that.
Gary
-
Hi Gary,
<(Your) Question - How often do you print on Epson Luster?>
To answer your question: Never - except for some comparative testing purposes. I've never liked that paper from day-one. For my taste, its too blue, high in OBAs, too thin and the larger sheets too prone to creasing. That said, it has endured over the years, and who knows, could be Epson's highest volume professional paper product, so I'm not knocking it; just saying why I don't use it. So inference is maybe I just haven't seen what you see because it happens with that paper and I haven't experienced it.
-
Hi Gary,
<(Your) Question - How often do you print on Epson Luster?>
To answer your question: Never - except for some comparative testing purposes. I've never liked that paper from day-one. For my taste, its too blue, high in OBAs, too thin and the larger sheets too prone to creasing. That said, it has endured over the years, and who knows, could be Epson's highest volume professional paper product, so I'm not knocking it; just saying why I don't use it. So inference is maybe I just haven't seen what you see because it happens with that paper and I haven't experienced it.
Hmmm..interesting. And a bit of a chuckle as well Mark - "so I'm not knocking it". I include that quote in jest only of course. As a matter of fact I tend to agree with almost all of your negative points concerning the Epson Luster paper. And the fact that you never use Luster, which by the way was no surprise, but does however answer another question. That being; why do you not see the issue I have described? Anyone printing almost exclusively on Matte papers would never notice this, but it does show on Luster, at least the Epson Luster on an Epson printer. If I had my way I would also be printing only on Matte Fine Art Papers, but I would lose most of my customers, due to the price point such papers demand. I also have a dozen+ Fine Artists whose works I often reproduce, all of which are printed on Fine Art Papers, as well as canvas occasionally. And you are also correct on another point. Epson Luster has been their best seller by far for a number of years. Which of course means absolutely Nothing. Would you purchase a product based on its position on the "Top Selling" chart? I think not. However, the vast majority of my customers are very happy with the Luster prints I present them, as are those who are willing to pay the price for the Fine Art papers.
Well Mark, I think we may have beaten this one into submission. All from a post in which I disagreed with one lonely sentence. One never knows what one might have started. A good conversation.
Gary
-
As a description -- it appears that the printer, following a cartridge replacement, seems to go back over some of the image already printed and add a very small an mount of ink, which presents as a more obvious gloss differential in that 1/2" area of the print. It's also more obvious in a darker part of the image, but it is always noticeable.
Gary
This has happened with my 3880 when I have run out of PK black while printing a larger print. Where the cartridge ran out it was quite noticeable, especially in regard to the gloss differential.
Actually this was discussed a year or two ago on LL in regard to the 3880.
-
Well Mark, I think we may have beaten this one into submission. All from a post in which I disagreed with one lonely sentence. One never knows what one might have started. A good conversation.
Gary
Yes we have, and a good conversation, but lest I leave it with an erroneous impression - I print mainly on Baryta Luster papers (Ilford GFS, Hahn PhotoRag Baryta, Epson Legacy) as I find they are much more capable than the matte papers for deep black rendition, separation of deep shadow detail and overall gamut. Amongst the matte papers, I think Canon's Premium Fine Art Smooth has a lot going for it (see my write-up if I remember correctly in the Pro-2000 review), but hard to find in Canada.
-
This has happened with my 3880 when I have run out of PK black while printing a larger print. Where the cartridge ran out it was quite noticeable, especially in regard to the gloss differential.
Actually this was discussed a year or two ago on LL in regard to the 3880.
Hi Jay,
"Actually this was discussed a year or two ago on LL in regard to the 3880". That's interesting. I have introduced this issue on various occasions over the past 10+ years, with little or no interest shown, or no one else experiencing the issue. I obviously missed that thread on LuLa that you referred to. I assume you saw this on Luster sheet, is that correct? As mentioned, I don't believe I have ever had to replace a cart while printing on sheet. Regardless, on some level it's good to find someone who has also experienced this abnormality. Or perhaps that's the wrong word, since it might actually be quite normal after all. There's always an interesting conundrum to take into account as well. There are those who might perhaps see things that are not there, as opposed to those who cannot see things that ARE there. Which is worse?
Thanks Jay,
Gary
-
I'm not referring this to anyone here, but my mother used to say, "there's none so blind as them that won't see".
-
Hi Jay,
"Actually this was discussed a year or two ago on LL in regard to the 3880". That's interesting. I have introduced this issue on various occasions over the past 10+ years, with little or no interest shown, or no one else experiencing the issue. I obviously missed that thread on LuLa that you referred to. I assume you saw this on Luster sheet, is that correct? As mentioned, I don't believe I have ever had to replace a cart while printing on sheet. Regardless, on some level it's good to find someone who has also experienced this abnormality. Or perhaps that's the wrong word, since it might actually be quite normal after all. There's always an interesting conundrum to take into account as well. There are those who might perhaps see things that are not there, as opposed to those who cannot see things that ARE there. Which is worse?
Thanks Jay,
Gary
I've found the thread where it was discussed: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103198.msg846638#msg846638
I was printing on Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl.
-
Many thanks, Mark! So, I may assume the machine is not behaving abnormally. I’ll learn to live with the time delay between prints. What about replacing supposedly empty cartridges? Are Canon printers similar to Epson in as far as allowing one to print until an ink cartridge is really empty (even if this happens during printing), replace the cartridge, and continue printing without having negatively influenced the quality of the print?
Lawrence
[[email protected]/quote]
Mark, In many of the reviews I have seen comments concerning ink used per print. With the Canon Pro-1000 this is a totally meaningless number without also adding in the amount of wasted ink which in this printer's case is obscene. I have gone round and round with Canon over this and taken my printer to a service center. Canon assures me this only happens with the 1st fill but my question is why, followed by I doubt it. And 1st let me say: 1. Yes I know the printer uses approximately 50% of the 1st cartridges to fill the lines, reservoirs, etc. and this is accounted for in my observations. 2. Yes, I keep my printer on all the time. 3. Yes I rarely go long without printing even if this means printing a nozzle check or Qimage unclog pattern. 4. Yes I started with the latest firmware. I could go on and on with the yeses but I have been through this with Canon and they have no answer. Using the Canon Accounting Manager software I have determined I am wasting 8-10 times the ink I am actually putting on paper!!
There are comments on dpreview concerning excessive waste with this printer with one gentlemen quickly selling his printer because of it. Another gentlemen posted a video of a cleaning cycle that he did not self generate that went on for 6 minutes and consumed 59 ml. of ink. This happen to me too. Just yesterday, I printed 3 prints, using 3.05 ml of ink on paper but consuming 6 ml. total--and I had printed the day before. Again, although this is only double the ink put on paper, my overall consumption is 8-10 times what is on paper. This is a printer that is very flawed. Yes, the prints are beautiful but any device is designed to purpose, to the consumers needs, and to the competition and with two of these design criteria Canon has failed horribly.
Does the Epson 800 and/or 5000 consume inks like this? The price of Canon ink at $.75 per ml. and 2-3 ml per 17 x 24 print, $1.5-2.25, sounds good until you multiply that by 8-10 to achieve the true cost per print. Try $15 to $22.5 17 x 24 in ink alone!
I realize that not everything can be covered in a review but this information needs to get out.
Mabe Hall
-
This is a long quote with no comment from yourself. What are you now asking about, specifically?
-
This is a long quote with no comment from yourself. What are you now asking about, specifically?
The information was in response to Lawerance's qustions concerning cleaning cycle noises with the Pro-1000--yes these are cleaning cycle noises and indicate extreme waste of ink.
My question in the end was in the next to last paragraph. Do the Epson P800 or P5000 waste ink like the Canon Pro-1000?
And last, since you spend a lot of time and effort comparing and analyzing prints from this and other printers I thought you may want to investigate this further or at least be aware of it. I have only seen a few threads on dpreview concerning this waste and it appears very few people realize it is happening although I am begining to suspect that more people know it and want to ignore it for any number of reasons. I read a lot of reviews for the Pro-1000 and P800 before purchasing the Pro-1000 and feel pretty sure if I had known of this ink wastge and resulting cost, I would have made a different purchasing decision.
Mabe
-
OK Mabe, sorry - I see where the confusion was. You should put your material outside the other person's quote, otherwise it all looks like yours. So this means you start your stuff AFTER the QUOTE you see above. If you did that, then something is wrong with the Forum software.
Now to your question.
"Waste of ink": maintenance is not "waste" - it's maintenance, which every printer requires, and to date the manufacturers have devised no other option but to run ink through the head and into the maintenance tank for doing this. Sad but true. So the issue boils down to how much each printer model uses in order to keep itself clean, and secondarily, whether users have any control over this behaviour, and if so how much.
The over-arching problem we all have in developing a good comparative understanding of ink usage for maintenance is that the manufacturers have been completely non-transparent about it, neither Canon nor Epson are prepared to change their policies in this regard (based on responses I've received any time I've raised the issue with them), so customers are left to their own devices to figure out what's going on. The folks I've talked with have given reasons for not releasing such information, one of the more understandable being the varying environmental conditions in which these printers are used. Published estimates would need to be normalized for environmental conditions. This last point would be relevant to consumers of review material whose environmental conditions may not reflect those used for defining the specs, or the conditions in which the reviewers of the printers work and would be doing their own verification.
Apart from the issue of environmental disconnects, those of us preparing reviews of these printers when they are new products are under some pressure to do the research and publish within a rather short time frame. This is mainly because our readers, potential purchasers, are very keen to learn what's new and whether they should buy. To do a proper research job on ink used for maintenance without guidance from the manufacturers can be done, but it would take a lot of time, because the printers are programmed to use differing amount of inks under different circumstances that warrant cleaning cycles of variable intensity, so we would need to develop all the basic data ourselves, normally invoking a routine of weighing the maintenance tank at frequent intervals and waiting for the occurrence of all these differing conditions, to really understand the behaviour. That could take quite a bit longer than people would like to wait. That's why you don't see much review material on ink used for maintenance. So we are left with the anecdotal experience of individuals who have experienced this or that circumstance and they report these events. It's not a good basis for coming to reliable comparative conclusions.
I've used all three models we're talking about here - the SC-P800, the SC-P5000 and the Pro-1000 and I'm not able to provide solid comparative information about ink used for maintenance, regardless of my own anecdotal observations on how they perform in this regard, because I have not concerned myself post-publication to do all the time-consuming work needed to comprehensively drill down on this matter.
-
I own both a 3880 and a Pro1000 (different locations). Both get consistent though relatively light use. I'm just beginning to track the Pro1000 ink "problem."
So here are two anecdotes. Anecdotes are not a substitute for the careful data and the hard work over time that Mark mentions -- but they're not irrelevant either.
First anecdote: Over 4 years of Epson3880 use, I went through 48 ink cartridges (including the initial set) and have never replaced the maintenance cartridge. In 3 months of CanonPro1000 use, I went through 1 ink cartridge (CO), though the initial set is almost exhausted, and I have just had to replace the maintenance cartridge.
Second anecdote: After replacing the maintenance cartridge on the Pro1000, I printed a test pattern as usual. The printer had been off for perhaps 5 days. It took almost 10 minutes (I will time it next time) of preparation to print the test pattern, and the brand new maintenance cartridge filled approximately 20%, largely with CO. I'm attaching two screen grabs of the supply levels, one hour apart.
-
Interesting. There appears to be no visible differences on the graphs of ink levels for all the colours except CO between the two screen grabs. Based on what I've been told about CO usage in this printer, the printer uses it for cleaning the platen because the part that needs cleaning is not user accessible (please see my article on CO usage for this printer); so assuming this information is correct - and I have no reason to believe it isn't, that ten minutes was being spent not only priming the printer, but also cleaning the platen. That's a big whack of CO coming out, but as a new cartridge, not clear how much of that empty space in your screen grab reflects ink that went into the reserve and the lines following upon the cartridge change, which would be used for printing. Generally speaking CO will empty much faster than the other inks because depending on your settings it covers either all or much of the page for every print, whereas no other individual ink would be used to nearly this extent for printing any one photograph. That said, no question CO is a heavy duty item. You can easily check from the accounting manager tool how much ink is being used for printing, print by print, but it is not informative about maintenance ink except for CO whose cleaning volume is included there. Also, I've been advised to leave the printer turned on to avoid the periodic programmed and massive cleaning operation (consumes about 50ml) that may occur upon start-up after a certain period of non-usage.
-
I'm not sure about the Pro-1000, which may or may not have the same sub-tank design, but you CAN change ink in larger Canons in mid-print, because they have sub-tanks which are filled from the ink cartridges, and which actually supply the ink for printing. I'm not sure what the capacity of the sub-tanks is, but it is substantially more than even the largest print (it might be in the 10-20 ml range or even more). The "I won't print any more" warning comes when the sub-tanks are no longer being filled, so there is much more than a print worth of ink left in the sub-tanks when you swap the cartridge. Epson uses pressurized cartridges instead of sub-tanks, so there isn't the substantial buffer.
Dan
-
I'm not sure about the Pro-1000, which may or may not have the same sub-tank design, but you CAN change ink in larger Canons in mid-print, because they have sub-tanks which are filled from the ink cartridges, and which actually supply the ink for printing. I'm not sure what the capacity of the sub-tanks is, but it is substantially more than even the largest print (it might be in the 10-20 ml range or even more). The "I won't print any more" warning comes when the sub-tanks are no longer being filled, so there is much more than a print worth of ink left in the sub-tanks when you swap the cartridge. Epson uses pressurized cartridges instead of sub-tanks, so there isn't the substantial buffer.
Dan
Subtanks are about 30 ml capacity each. According to documentation, it is not recommended to exchange carts until they are fully empty and printer asks to do so. I am not sure if it can happen during printing process, probably yes (as in 17 inch Epsons).
-
I own both a 3880 and a Pro1000 (different locations). Both get consistent though relatively light use. I'm just beginning to track the Pro1000 ink "problem."
So here are two anecdotes. Anecdotes are not a substitute for the careful data and the hard work over time that Mark mentions -- but they're not irrelevant either.
First anecdote: Over 4 years of Epson3880 use, I went through 48 ink cartridges (including the initial set) and have never replaced the maintenance cartridge. In 3 months of CanonPro1000 use, I went through 1 ink cartridge (CO), though the initial set is almost exhausted, and I have just had to replace the maintenance cartridge.
Second anecdote: After replacing the maintenance cartridge on the Pro1000, I printed a test pattern as usual. The printer had been off for perhaps 5 days. It took almost 10 minutes (I will time it next time) of preparation to print the test pattern, and the brand new maintenance cartridge filled approximately 20%, largely with CO. I'm attaching two screen grabs of the supply levels, one hour apart.
The ink level bars are not accurate. First they start moving very fast but then they slow down. I am pretty sure that between the two screenshots the printer used all the cartridges for cleaning and not only the CO. Don't forget also to update to the latest firmware which addresses partially the CO ink consumption.
I am at the third set of cartridges. I've changed four of them. So 28 cartridges in a year and I am in the middle of the third maintenance tank.
My ink consumption notes (after the first 9 months) here:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117644.msg1002452#msg1002452 (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117644.msg1002452#msg1002452)