Industrial Deals Beauty STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book House Cleaning TheTick TheTick TheTick  Introducing Echo Show Limited-time offer: All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $79.99 Kindle Oasis hots Water Sports STEMClubToys17_gno



There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-10 of 623 reviews(Verified Purchases). See all 662 reviews
on September 16, 2013
I bought the CanoScan 9000 F Mark II scanner in March, 2013 for $179.00 and use it primarily to scan 35 mm and 120 mm film. So far I have scanned over 1,000 frames. I have uploaded low-resolution images to the Amazon site (11/26/13.. Amazon has deleted these images), and have provided (below) links to high-resolution scans. Rather than taking my word, or anyone else's, on the quality of this scanner, look at the images it has produced and judge for yourself. The links will take you to my photography web site. To view an image at a higher resolution, click on the "sizes" icon at the far-right bottom of the page; the "original" option is the highest resolution available.

1.Cowboys [...]
This and the five photos that follow were shot on 120 mm Fuji Velvia (transparency) film in October 1980.

2.Moth [...]
This and the seven photos that follow were shot on 35 mm Kodak Ektachrome (transparency) film in 1977.

3.Key West [...]
35 mm Kodak Ektacolor (negative) film shot in 1974.

4.Santa Barbara [...]
120 mm Kodak Vericolor Professional (negative) film shot in 1988.

5.Biscayne Bay [...]
35mm Kodak Kodacolor II (negative) film shot in 1972.

For the money, I don't think you could buy a better scanner; however, the software, could be better.

The Canoscan offers three programs for scanning film: Auto Scan, Custom Scan and Scan Gear. It also comes with another program, Image Garden, for cataloging and filing images. I am currently using Adobe Lightroom to do this and do not care to switch.

To run Auto Scan you simply push the auto button on the scanner. The scanner detects whether you are scanning film, photos or documents, automatically selects the resolution and file format and sends files of each image to your computer. In regard to film, the Auto Scan will scan only 35 mm film in the JPEG format at 1200 dpi. If you want a TIFF format and / or a higher resolution, you must activate the Custom Scan or Scan Gear from your computer. The auto and custom scan programs will scan only 35 mm film while the Scan Gear program scans 35 mm and 120 mm formats and lets you make corrections on a low-resolution preview. I generally use Scan Gear for all my film scans because I can select which frames to scan from the preview; the other programs scan every frame.

For the most part, the programs work OK, but are far from perfect. Each program requires you to designate a folder on your computer that will store the scanned images. If you create different folders for each program you will get triplicate files of the same images no matter which program you use.

While the scanner's uncorrected output is pretty good, a serious photographer would probably want to make post-scan adjustments using more specialized software such as Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop. The Scan Gear program can make useful adjustments, such as flip or rotate, but does a terrible job on the finer adjustments such as color balance, exposure and contrast.

The scanner's ability to output "TIFF" files rather than just "JPEG" is a real advantage. The TIFF format is uncompressed meaning that it captures more information than JPEG and thereby allows a wider range of corrections (assuming you have the software that can make the corrections). Unfortunately, the TIFF files are about four times the size as JPEG.

When I first tried to scan a full-frame of 120 mm film at 9600 DPI (the highest) resolution, I got an error message: "Scanner cannot be performed unless the crop size or output resolution is reduced to 10208 x 4032 pixels or less." This message also appears, but less frequently, when scanning 35 mm film at full-frame. By trial and error, I found that I cannot scan a full-fame of 120 mm film at more than 2400 dpi. I also discovered that if I use a crop tool to reduce the size of the scan area, I can avoid the error message and scan at 9600 dpi. This scan, however, creates a very large file of more than 500 MB. The manual does not explain what this confusing message means. It appears to say that you must reduce resolution in terms of pixels but the scanner settings are expressed in dpi's. (Pixels and dpi's are not equivalent terms). I thought that I might have an outdated driver, but the Canon web site offers only one driver: "9000F MarkII MP Drivers Ver. 1.00" while the scanner came with driver 19.0.2. It is not clear which is the more current, so I am still using the driver that came with the scanner.

Despite the software quirks, I am giving this scanner five stars because it is reasonably-priced and produces scans that are comparable to drum scans.

4/12/14 update: Today I noticed that Amazon has deleted my links to high-resolution scans that I could not post on their web site. I have written to Amazon asking whether they now forbid reviews to include links to external, non-commercial web sites.
review image review image review image review image review image review image review image review image review image review image review image review image
3232 comments| 365 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 2, 2014
A much reviewed product. Also, some very good tech reviews on other web sites. I thought I might have something to add?

I bought this scanner because my new printer/scanner "all in one" (a canon mx340) does not do a good job scanner photos (prints). I had a Mustek several years ago that stopped working, so without getting technical (yet), it was obvious that "all in one" was not very good.
I borrowed an Epson V600 from a friend, and I could see easily that one can get much better scanner for <$200. And you can scan negatives/slides with some flatbed scanners, including both the 9000F and the V600. I expected this to be a bonus, but since they can scan negatives, I wanted to buy the best of the two. And that is all you should expect, the best of the class.

Result. It is a 5 star value for scanning prints, not so good for negatives. I lot of this review is about negatives, because that is where the problems are.

Reviews from serious photographic professionals make it clear that no flatbed scanner is very good at scanning small transparent originals (negatives or slides of 35mm and less). The problem is not just the resolution, but the dynamic range. This scanner can almost pick up everything you can see on a print, in fact everything a print records, but it cannot record the range of dark and light that a slide or negative holds. And you can use this extra light and dark information to fine tune your photographs with software like Photoshop or Lightroom (and many other packages). So do not let someone tell you it does not matter. There is information on slide or negative you can not even see with your eyes. This is much more important than you think, even if you are just going to adjust the brightness and contrast, very important if you plan to make adjustment to highlights are blacks etc.. Modern software lets you adjust things digitally (you needed to use dodging tools and filters to achieve in a dark room). But little can be done if the full range of brightness and color the negative records is not available. In fact, some of your negatives may not have been exposed optimally, the person printing them years ago (or the machine) may have adjusted the exposure of the prints (adjusted the brightness of your prints). OK maybe your perfect, but most people have shots that the exposure of the paper was adjusted to make the print better. Maybe it is true it does not matter to everyone, if you just want to recognize the faces and look at the perfectly exposed parts of the image on a computer screen... Otherwise this is a compromise. The scanners dynamic range is good enough for prints, but not optimal for negatives and slides. Still it might be the best in its class, it would still be worth 5 stars.

I decided to try the 9000F mark II because it supports a feature which "might" slightly improve the scanning of negatives. Third party software like SilverFast and VueScan Pro can control exposure used for negatives and slides. These programs can even automatically combine two scans (high and low exposure) to produce a single file with more dynamic range. Vuescan calls this multi-exposure, and states it may be "sometimes" usefull. Silverfast calls it a similar name, and claims it makes the 9000F mark II work much better, according to SilverFast you really need multi-exposure. If the Epson V600 supports this type of operation, it is not clear to me, I tried VueScan and it did not list the capability (but that might be a "bug" in Vuescan). This in the end, is why I decided to try the Canon.

Even with this feature, it is not a perfect scanner for negatives, slightly better than another flatbed that does not support exposure control. But the price is similar, and I'm used to canon software.

The biggest fault to me is the resolution scandal. Canon claimed 9600dpi resolution is both true and very misleading. So misleading I cannot give it 5 stars. It really does scan at very high resolution (higher than most dedicated film scanners). But it is pointless, you cannot see film grain in the results because the focus of the optics is not good enough to make any use of 9600 dpi resolution (well not to produce very high resolution scans, but if you like pointlessly large files you will be happy.) There are dedicated "home" film scanners (for less than $300) that have better dynamic range, and better "real" resolution (you can often see the film grain on 400 speed film). These have true resolution of about 3000 dpi. The Epson V600 is not much better, I would not give it 5 starts either. I had read this in several good technical reviews, and I can confirm it now. @2400 dpi is just about as good as 9600dpi with this scanner. In fact, the included canon software (ij scan) refuses to scan a full 35mm image in 9600dpi, you have to find a very odd setting to enable such large images (not in canon software ij scan utility itself but in the shell program that launches ij scan utility). Even then, you still get warnings about such "huge" images. Very funny, they advertise 9600dpi, and then try to stop you from doing it? The Engineers may not be too happy with the Marketing department? The lie makes the scanner not worth 5 stars, it is not what it is advertised to be. The scanner is also so slow in 9600 dpi mode, it is painful. It is not the only fault with the scanner, but the most serious one in a less than $200 dollar scanner.

BTW, it seems from my research (actually I read some stuff) that if you already own a full frame digital 35mm SLR camera with more than 14M. You already own a good scanner for 35mm slides and negatives. You Just need two other things, a good macro-lens and a slide copier. In fact, a digital camera might be the best scanner available for 35 slides and negatives if you build your own slide copier. Makes sense, you have a very high end camera chip and a lot of control. You can use HDR techniques, and the type of software that creates panoramic images from multiple shots to capture all the resolution and dynamic range that the film or negative holds. But maybe not so convenient? After I'm done digging through old negatives, I plan to try the camera thing, but only with my best negatives. Some day when I have time?... Like, after I'm dead. Canon or Nikon should make a kit for the crop frame SLRs and full frame SLR. They have the skill and it mostly just a combination of there own equipment.

Scanning prints:

I like this scanner for scanning prints very much, and I think it is about equal to Epson V600 (I have scanned a few things with both.) The only thing that might be better is the noise. There is noise in the scans that does not average out with multiple scans, or averaging away when high resolution scans or converted to medium resolution. But at $200, I think this is very, very good. The packaged software is good enough. Canon does send a lot of extra software that is not really useful, at least to someone who also has all in one printer/scanner and Lightroom. It is mostly intended to make routine things like photocopying easier, but for me it is waste, and I would rather it be easy to install just IJ scan. I'm not saying it is bad software, I do not use it or need it. Silverfast and Vuescan support this scanner. But unless you are needed to calibrate the scanner with a color standard, I do not see anything useful for scanning prints. The built in color correction does a nice job, the scanned images look very much like the originals on my monitor. Printing is another matter, but this is not a printer. Some say the scanning software is hard to use. To me it seems pretty good. It allows 24 and 48 color bit Tiff files, 16-bit bw tiff, as well as other formats.

The warm up time is as advertised nearly instant. Basically you can scan in 1-3 seconds after turning it on. Very nice.

Scanning Negative:

One small fault is about the color balance. The build in software does not correct for different types of color negative films at all (at least I do not see it). This would be nice, because different types of film are different. A slide and a print get looked at by the human eye. Negatives were not meant for this, and the chemists take advantage of this. The Silverfast demo did well with several types of Kodak Royal Gold and Max films, but Vuescan did not (although at least it attempts too). I understand it comes bundled with Silverfast in Europe. I can see why. But Silverfast is as expensive as this scanner and will only work with one scanner (you select it to get a license). Vuescan is about $75 dollars and works with all the scanners you have with free lifetime upgrades. I actually already owned it from years ago. Since it supports multi-exposure with this scanner it is what I used for negatives.

For scanning negatives I have found that indeed the multi-exposure feature in VueScan does help the dynamic range a little. Just a little, less than I hoped. I have happened to have few large prints that I had developed in a series of exposures, prints made from the same negative with different exposures of the paper. So a sort of paper multi-exposure that has been waiting to be digitized. Using a free HDR like program (Enfuse) I combined scans of these prints. This result was a better dynamic range then I got from using the multi-exposure feature in Vuescan pro when I scanned the original negative. The multi-exposure of the negative did allow better adjustments of highlights in Lightroom than the simple scan. So multi-exposure is good, but not great. And I find that I can very slightly tell the difference between a 2400dpi scan and a 4800dpi scan. But the 4800dpi scan is reasonable fast, so I used it. So, it is good "enough" for most 35mm negative that do not require much brightness and contrast adjustment, and which you do not plan to print in 8x10" (or larger format). And good enough to tell which negatives are worth more work. Maybe send a few to a scanning service. I did not get a chance to try Silverfast with the 9000F mark II, my free trial expired while I was playing with the Epson V600. But Vuescan works fairly well.

I think I found a bug in Vuescan that is very hard to live with because it affects the only reason I bought it. I first upgraded to version 9.5.24. The program has a 64-bit version and 32-bit version (for Windows 32-bit X86). A few days later I was offered 9.5.25. When I upgraded the 64-bit version, I stopped seeing the multi-exposer option. Or maybe it never worked in 64-bit; I do not remember which shortcut I was using. Now I have to use the 32-bit (not upgraded) version, it works OK, but I'm afraid to upgrade it and free upgrades are included for life!

The Near Infrared based dust removal works well for me. (Dust removal on the Epson V600 was equal). The Near IR only works for negatives and some slides, but this is a great feature in a <$200 scanner.

So far I noticed a few times when the software has stopped, and I had to turn the scanner on and off. But this is not as bad as with the old scanner I owned years ago. It also happened when I tried out the V600. It happened with both cannon software and Vuescan, but Vuesan is more of a problem. Turn the scanner off and Vuescan generally unfreezes.

I do not have many faded and stretched items to scan, so I cannot comment on that part of the software. I would likely use software that is not bundled with the scanner for this anyway, I have a few programs. Reading other reviews, it seems most people like the canon software for the price.

The OCR works as well as I expected. Wish is not very good. Much better than a few years ago. And it might be very useful. It actually worked better than the OCR on my all in one scanner/printer. Not sure why? It is a Canon and it is has a paper-feeder, just the right hardware for OCR.

I always read 1 start reviews. If a lot of them are about the item failing in the first weeks, I assume the percent of one star reviews is an indication of the quality. But I also want to see if the complaints are valid.

Some of the only 1 star reviews do seem to be concerned with broken scanners, some arrived defected. But several concern the fact the negative trays might break. One person gave it one star based entirely on the opinion that that they were easy to break and hard to replace. Although, his are not broken? (1 star??). Yet I would not be surprised if the plastic might break someday. Indeed I find them expensive and difficult to replace (see some links below). There are third party trays, but the cost at least 25% of the scanner price. You need something like these holders for negatives. You do not want to just put them on the glass; they would have nothing on top of them and will curve, touching the glass plate in just one spot, and not giving a uniform scan focus. You could place a glass plate on top, but that causes artifacts and rings that can be very bad. So a good holder is needed to prevent Newton rings and other artifacts.

BTW, the negative holder is not very good at stopping the film from curling toward the emulsion side. (The emulsion (the not so shiny) side goes down in the scanner, you can see the difference in large flat areas of negatives, like blue sky). The holder helps, but my negatives are still a little curved. So far, I have not scanned a negative with a critically perfect focus to worry about. (I take a lot of photos of waterfalls and rivers with long exposures, they are focus but soft, and I have started with these.) Of course many pictures of family and friends (not the kind of thing you want a super hard focus in the center for). So the curvature is not too bad for me... yet. I do have some negatives that I really want to capture all the sharpness possible. One of the links below is about a trick with toothpicks to fix the curvature problem; another is for a special kind of glass that does not cause problems, it can flatten the curvature of the negatives. I have not tried any of these yet, just passing along the info. If the holder brakes, I sure I could rig something.

Curved negatives links and film holder links:

"[...]"
"[...]"
"[...]"

European website that sells oem 35mm negative/film strip holder (could not find a US site, but one is listed in the comment section of a 1 star review)

"[...]"

After market negative holders, even for odd sizes like 110.

"filmscanusa.net/CanoScan-9000F-MKII-9000F-8800F-9950F-8900F-8600F-8400F-9000F.htm"
11 comment| 37 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 4, 2016
I love this, it has worked flawlessly for me. I did spend some time playing with the settings to get the best results to meet my expectations but once I found them I have been scanning old family negatives daily, so far I've scanned 1800 without issue and have about 20000 more to scan. Photo added to review was in a box for 30 years and after scanning it looks the same as it did when my mom printed it 30 years ago (the original photo is in a family album at my moms). I have been able to edit and adjust images scanned in that in the original print were too dark and turned out poorly, so I am able to save photos that 30 years ago were "junk" photos. I also have cousins who do not have many photos from childhood and I was able to make them a digital copy, as well as a digital copy for each of my siblings to have. It really is a user friendly scanner that works well. I have scanned 35, and 110. To scan 110 you just set it in the scanner click preview and there is a box on the top left of the scan gear you click and it gives you a preview of the whole 110 strip, from there you use the little crop box and place it over the individual image from the strip until the image appears as a tiny thumbnail photo. You can do multiple crop boxes and then click scan. I read in some reviews that this does not do 110 film, but it does. I imagine any strip of film with individual image frames on it could be scanned using the method I used for the 110 so I do not feel this scanner is as limited as some have said it is. The setting that have worked best for me was 4800dpi, jpeg files. The Tiff files took forever to scan and were very large. I have tried the scratch and dust setting but that also added a lot of time to the scan so I do not use that setting as the majority of my negatives are still in very good condition. I have also scanned my boyfriends childhood photos in at 600dpi and they turned out wonderful too. I would absolutely recommend this product to friend or family. I am completely pleased with this purchase.
review image
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 11, 2013
I have owned many scanners. This is the best by far. In my three months of ownership, I have already scanned about 600 photos.

What do I like: Using an LED lighting element, the scanner is immediately ready for use. Scanning is very fast. It is simple to scan multiple images simultaneously. Scanned results are great. Dust removal is good. Price is excellent for a good scanner.

As far as quality, the scans look very detailed. Most of the photos are old. Very old. Some are about 100 years. Most are either scratched or faded. Most need some Photoshop after scanning.

So, why do I think this is so good? Scans are far faster then my previous scanners. Although I need to work on most of the photos, it requires far less work then what I needed to do in the past.

What don't I like: slide adapter is not good. I know, as I have a tons of slides I should use a professional slide scanner as well. However, for the cost and time I will probably just have a service scan them for me.

I really do not like the included "My Image Garden" application. It is worse then worthless. Canon should have included a worthwhile photo application.
33 comments| 110 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 6, 2013
I bought this scanner because someone else had recommended it. The scanner arrived when Amazon said it would arrive. I immediately unpacked it, installed the software, and tried scanning some negatives. Excellent results! I then tried some old 35mm slides and it worked equally well. I have more than paid for the scanner by the amount of pictures that I have scanned from the many negatives that I had managed to amass. If you scan several pictures at once, the software does not treat them as one giant picture, instead it makes them into individual pictures. My only concern is that I feel that the film carrier is or could be a bit flimsy, but with care it should last for as long as you own the scanner. Also, the LED lighting makes for an almost instant on scanner. I just can't say enough good things, I am so glad that I bought it.
11 comment| 169 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
This review is for the Canon CanoScan 9000F MKII Color Image Scanner

I am using this scanner on mac computers to digitize years and years of old pictures.

So far I have done around three hundred. Very good results.

Software works perfectly on the macs. Just so you know the buttons don't control anything when using macs, you must use the buttons in the software program that is provided.

Pictures look better than the small originals.
0Comment| 6 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 8, 2016
Great for scanning film. Using the highest resolution for scanning 35mm film. You can get better results from a high quality film shot than from any digital camera. If you are a pro film shooter or a wanna be using good film this is the way to get the best enlargments. At the highest setting you can get near a 100MP file. But if you are cropping a small part of the image out this is the way to go to still get a good photo.
The only challenge from there is to have a computer good enough to process and display the file. The scanner is definitely more than most will ever need.
Want to get some of those old family heirloom negatives onto digital and bring them back to life? This is the tool. It can only handle half a dozen 35mm frames or so at a time, and the high quality scans take a few minutes, but for the price a little time is a fair trade off. This is probably the best scanner without getting into the full out big scale photo lab equipment and it probably can yield a better quality.
Ive read the color range/accuracy of this scanner may be a weakness compared to more expensive scanners, but I've had no problems. If you are into Black and White and shooting for quality tack sharp negatives, throw away your enlarger and scan scan scan.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 28, 2016
Getting great results from this scanner. I can achieve as good a result from scanning my film, as I get from the professional labs. The two images attached are from the same 35mm negative, developed at a professional lab. The darker image was scanned by the lab, and the lighter image was scanned by me on this scanner. There are some exposure differences, and the pro lab scan looks to have a little more detail, but the quality I get from this scanner is perfectly fine for me.
review image review image
11 comment| 16 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 25, 2016
I bought this scanner solely for the purpose of scanning negatives since the printed 4x6's that have sat in photo-books for 20 years are starting to show their age. After doing lots of research on different options for negative scanning, I opted for this scanner since your can simultaneously scan 2 strips of negatives letting you effectively scan 8 images at a time. Depending on the DPI you choose it takes maybe 5-10 minutes for each scan, so you can scan roughly one to two pictures a minute.

Scanning negatives is a tedious process, but the quality of the images from this scanner is fantastic and it was definitely easy to use. I also believe this is one of the faster options in terms of do-it-your self negative scanners. Each image is processed independently and all I had to do was organize the photos and upload them to a digital library.

Pro Tip: After you place your film strips in the plastic holder, use a Rocket Air Blaster (for DSLR cameras) to blow off any dust or hairs, otherwise it'll show up on scans.
0Comment| 10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 5, 2015
The MP Navigator EX software that is supposed to work with this CanoScan 9000F MarkII in Mac Yosemite refuses to do so, Instead, I only get a "Cannot communicate with scanner,' no matter which version of the drivers or scan software I use. Further, we see this problem reported many times on Canon and Apple discussions of computer problems, but no one seems able to find a solution. Beware!
review image
22 comments| 18 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse