Both at highest quality - but the quality setting didn't have big influence on ink consumption. We did the comparison just out of curiosity, so I didn't care to write the exact numbers, but I'll remember to note it when we meet again to make MK tests.
Interesting. As mentioned, not a big deal to many because ink is really negligible in the overall cost of what they are selling, whereas to others more important because they are printing wholesale or large volume with discounted prices so ink is a larger percentage of costs.
seems this is somewhat offset because from what I can find, the Epson inks run about 20% less per ml in equivalent refill sizes. (about 0.32/ml for Epson and about 0.40/ml for Canon in 700ml size was about the best prices I could find).
Any theories as to why? Somewhat seems to defy logic, but perhaps the red and blue inks offer greater density in a lot of colors that the Epson may have to dither out more colors to duplicate. Epson's main purpose of the orange and green were more about hitting spot colors for proofing systems (a huge market for Epson, probably not so much for Canon), where Canon's choice of red and blue was about efficiency and gamut. The Epsons require a lot of LK and LLK ink in almost every image, could be the darker blue and red inks allow the Canon to dither the colors out a little more efficiently. Maybe Canon inks are just darker overall, and the lighter tones are handled with a little less ink.
Interesting and useful info.
