Oil month Automotive HPC Magazine Deals Introducing Prime Wardrobe nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Unlimited Music. Made for you. Learn more. GNO for Samsung S9 Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Mother's Day gifts Home Gift Guide Mother's Day gifts across Amazon Home Gift Guide Save $20 on a Deep Cleaning Appointment Hostiles available to rent Hostiles available to rent Hostiles available to rent  Kids Edition Echo Dot Fire tablets: Designed for entertainment Kindle Paperwhite GNO Shop Now Start your Baby Registry

on July 24, 2009
Updated again 12/14/14: This scanner is STILL WORKING PERFECTLY FOR OVER 5 YEARS!! I got it new for $112.98. DO NOT BUY FROM A SELLER that is a highway robber because if they are selling this for more than $150.00, if its even worth that since it was $113.00 in 2009. I would seriously look elsewhere if some greedy seller is asking for over $400.00 to $500.00 for this scanner especially when there are better and cheaper items out since this oldie came out over 5 years ago so don't get ripped off! Remember, what they were selling in 09' for $113.00 is now almost $500.00 for 5 year ancient tech.

See 1/10/13 update below. This puppy is still working just perfectly for 2 1/2 years now so far. I'm still very happy with this.

I wasn't planning on getting another scanner until I foolishly decided to clean the inside and outside of the glass on my old HP scanner because the underside was cloudy. I got rid of the smokey glass but added lint:( so I checked the specs on this scanner since there weren't many reviews on it and decided to take a chance on buying the LiDE 700F because of the image resolution and price.

I couldn't be happier that I messed up the old scanner. This one makes excellent scans and makes things very easy to enlarge when printing. It is also very lightweight and easy to store. One of the better things is that it all works with one USB cord. I really am impressed with the quality of the scan although I don't believe that it actually scans at the speed that is advertised. It does seem slower than what the specs list and that is at the default scanning resolution for me. That issue doesn't bother me though because it fits my needs perfectly. Resolution is easily adjusted but the higher the resolution the slower the scan.

I use it (and carry it) between 3 different computers in 3 different rooms. It works flawlessly on Windows XP, Windows Vista 32 bit, Windows Vista 64 bit, and Windows 7 32 bit and 64 bit. It comes with its own software which works well although I prefer to use it through Adobe Photoshop.

Picture scans come out excellent and the color correction is great but not perfect. It has restored some old photos very well for me. Scanning text is easy and having the four buttons on the front make scanning for e-mail, .pdf, copies, and scans faster.

I do not have slides to scan so cannot comment on the quality of slide scans although I am extremely curious due to the very high maximum pixel count for slide scans.

I like this scanner immensely because of the light weight, portability between machines I use, that it requires only one USB plug, and the great scanned images. I do agree with another reviewer that the cover does feel flimsy and could be broken by someone not careful but that does not concern me much even thought I carry this from room to room depending on what machine I need to use. Just use the same care as you would with your laptop and you will be fine.

I would not hesitate to recommend this scanner for high resolutions scans for people on a budget. This is a great scanner! I have no regrets having purchased this scanner.

BTW: This is my first straying from HP scanners since 1995. Beware HP! Canon has won me over.

EDIT: (Addition 3/7/10) Works flawlessly with Windows 95, 2000, XP, Vista, and 7.

I also have to retract my statement about color correction. This machine scans so well that the image of something I scanned, using this scanner, was better than the actual item according to the person who bought the item. I was accused of "Photoshopping" a picuture because the image was so much better than the actual paper money the scan was used to represent. It was only scanned (using the scanner software - not imported into Photoshop), cropped only, and not altered using software. Now that's an impressive scanner!

January 10, 2013:
This is still my only scanner and it still works perfectly. It has NEVER given me a problem and is so easy to stash. I still recommend this scanner unless there's something better for less. I wouldn't know because I've been happy with this one soon headed to year 3 of use.

January 25, 2013:
I guess this is now one of 2 scanners. I haven't tried the other scanner yet and it was not intentionally picked to replace this scanner. That was for a Vine review and I won't compare this scanner to that because this scanner is spectacularly slim and that one is not.
1414 comments| 278 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
VINE VOICEon October 18, 2012
Last year, when my belovéd HP 4600 scanner bit the dust, I replaced it with the Canon CanoScan LiDE 700F. I've since received an Epson Perfection V370 Photo for review. Because they have similar features and pricing, I've decided to write a single review comparing and contrasting them. This review replaces the previous review of the Canon 700F.

IMPORTANT This printer originally cost $60 to $120. (I seem to remember paying $75, including shipping.) As good as it is, it is not a $400 printer.

The HP 4600 was a classic scanner. You could lift the scanner from its base and lay it on whatever you wanted to scan, viewing the "whatever" >>through the scanner<<. I know of no other scanner that offers this feature -- it is sorely missed (especially as stitching software makes large-area scans practical). (I recently tried to scan a book with the Canon. It was close to impossible to get a well-aligned scan without a gutter shadow. This would have been little or no problem with the HP. I'll probably put the book in holder and photograph it, page by page.)

The HP 4600 also set a standard for compactness >>and<< sturdiness. You couldn't pound nails with it, but there was no sense of flimsiness.

Neither the Canon nor the Epson reach this standard. The Canon's lid (which, in fairness, is not a structural element) seems decidedly flimsy. It bends too easily. "First impressions" count, and Canon should have made it thicker and stiffer. (My NSECTs are made of thicker plastic.)

The Epson comes across as a heavy -- and not well-balanced -- plastic box. The lid has an articulating hinge to accommodate thick books, but lifting the lid to do so is actually a less-prepossessing experience than it is with the Canon -- the hinge wobbles. (In compensation, the Epson accommodates thicker books than the Canon, before additional mass is needed to flatten them.)

If I were buying an inexpensive scanner for a small office, I'd go with the Epson, as the Canon seems more-likely to be damaged by careless users -- especially by being knocked off the desk. (I did not perform the obvious drop test.)

WIA Compatibility
I've put this near the top because it will be the deciding factor for some buyers. Windows Image Acquisition (or Windows Imaging Architecture) is a standardized interface for imaging hardware (including cameras and printers). Programs that support it can scan and import images directly from a scanner.

I tried it with Photoshop CS6. There was no problem with the Canon. A few mouse clicks, and the photo on the platen was scanned and loaded into Photoshop, ready to edit. With the Epson, the V370 was recognized, but no WIA interface was available.

WIA is important if you want to edit photographic prints, negatives, slides, etc, >>with advanced software like Photoshop and PaintShop<<. There's no need to separately scan, save, and import. Of course, if you're happy with the editing utilities that come with these scanners, you don't need WIA.

In my original Canon review, I paraphrased Oscar Wilde: "There is no such thing as a good scanner or bad scanner. There is merely good or bad scanner >>software<<." One might also paraphrase Hamlet: "Scanners are neither good nor bad, but their software makes them so."

Unless you're content with fully automatic scanning, you'll have to get familiar with the supplied software. Both have the same basic features -- the ability to select image type and size, resolution, brightness/contrast, directory and file type, and so on.

Generally speaking, the Epson software is organized by the type of image you're scanning -- photo, letter, negative. The Canon software organizes scanning by the destination -- screen image, JPG, PDF. Both, however, let you switch to a "professional" mode that lets you set almost everything manually. (The Canon's pro mode isn't available until you click the "use printer scanner" checkbox.)

Much to my surprise, the Epson software provides more, and a wider range of, image-editing features. (You'd think Canon would lead in this area.)

For example, Epson lets you set JPEG compression from 1 to 100 (least to most), while provides gives only three levels (least, average, most). Epson lets you select the degree of unsharp masking and the dpi of the descreening. Canon gives only one setting for each.

Canon's color-balance adjustments are made with a "ring-around" display that shows the scan at the center, surrounded by "corrected" versions of different hues. Epson, on the other hand, offers a more-powerful system that lets you fine-tune the correction -- but without any reference (other than seeing the change on the original scan). The Canon system is inherently obvious, while the Epson arrangement was thoroughly confusing -- and Epson's help was not very helpful.

Canon lets you reorder your scans before placing all of them in a single PDF file. Epson does not permit reordering -- you have to delete and rescan.

Regardless... The software for both products has a lot of features, not all of which are intuitive. Don't wait until you have a major project to learn how these programs work.

Image Quality
I tested the scanners with two color images. One was the cover of "Make: Lego and Arduino Projects" I just reviewed, plus a highly detailed 8x10 photo of a friend. My monitor is a factory-calibrated ASUS PA 248Q. To compare the scans with the originals, I turned off the room lights and illuminated the originals with a Lowel ego light.

I used manual settings for both scanners to make sure the images were scanned and processed the same way. Both were scanned at 100%, with the scan area limited to the actual object size. Unsharp masking and descreening (for the book cover) were enabled. All images were saved as JPEGs with minimal compression.

Out of the box, both scanners showed a slight shift to the blue, with Canon's error slightly greater. Both very slightly overexposed both images.

To judge sharpness and detail, the scans were viewed in Windows Photo Viewer at high magnification. They were essentially indistinguishable.

Both descreened the book cover perfectly, even though the Canon doesn't have an adjustable setting. Unfortunately, the Canon software doesn't permit using unsharp masking and descreening at the same time.

User Manual
The Canon manual is "classic Japanese" -- it explains all the details (the what), while ignoring the broader view (the why). The Epson manual is surprisingly weak on details -- I often found its Help confusing or seemingly incomplete -- but it has step-by-step procedures for most scan types.

Regardless, if you plan to perform anything other than automatic scans, be prepared to get familiar with your scanner's features and functions.

Real-World Considerations
In terms of daily use, the Canon wins in almost every department. It's slightly shorter and much thinner than the Epson. It's easy to pick up with one hand. (I keep the it on a rack next to my desk and grab it when needed.) The Epson is much heavier, and not well-balanced for single-handed pickup.

The Epson's platen sits within a four-walled well. The Canon has only three walls; the long left-hand "side" is flat. This means that, in some cases, you'll have less trouble "flattening" books.

The Canon is powered by the USB port; a power supply isn't needed. It works fine with my notebook computer running on its battery. If you want to copy documents at the library, the Canon is absolutely the way to go. The Epson has an external power supply which, as other reviewers noted, is so wide it's likely to overlap the adjacent socket.

In imitation of the HP 4670, the Canon has a kick stand that lets it stand almost vertically, saving desk space. If you use the Canon mostly to copy letters, you need only drop the letter in, close the lid, and click Copy or Scan.

The Epson scans both 35mm negatives and slides. The Canon scans only negatives.

The Epson doesn't support WIA, so you can't scan directly to image-editing software. On the other hand, the wider range of Epson's software adjustments might minimize the need to use such software.

It's a toss-up. The image quality of the Canon and Epson are essentially indistinguishable. If the Canon had the software features of the Epson, or the Epson had the physical elegance and WIA functionality of the Canon, it might be possible to declare a "winner". (My own preference is for the Canon.) You'll have to decide on the basis of hardware function and software features.
0Comment| 9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on May 19, 2014
+ Powers entirely off the USB 2.0 connection
+ Has hinged lid to accommodate books and thicker items
+ Has 9600 dpi optical scanning capability
+ Scan quality and software is good (let's you save in a variety of formats too)
+ Has 35 mm negative scanning ability in a pinch (but is poorly designed, so don't get it just for that)

- 35 mm film scanning feature is badly conceived (fine for a handful of negatives but you wouldn't want to use it to archive hundreds of negatives, for example). If you are seriously considering this scanner for that reason, please read the details below for why I was disappointed with this feature.
- Silly online "online help" style manual with customized reader that has no way even to enlarge diagrams (they could have had a simple PDF manual as well, couldn't they?)

Get it if you really need the high optical resolution, otherwise get one of the smaller and more compact Canon models.

More Details:
I got this model mostly because of the advertised "35 mm negative scanning attachment," as I wanted to archive my entire pre-digital-era photos as digital ones. I have both negatives and prints for all these pictures, but figured that the negative would give better results since it has more dynamic range, closer to the original source, etc. For some reason, I assumed it would scan an entire negative strip at a time, automatically dividing the frames, etc. Nothing of the sort. All it is is a bracket that snaps onto the top of the platen that provides a mechanical guide for the negative strip to slip into, on the one hand, and a "lightbox attachment" to snap above, on the other hand. The problem with this arrangement is that:
- The lightbox is only large enough for one negative at at time so you have to lift it up and move it over to the next frame position on the guide manually and then rescan for each negative, one at a time.
- Each scan takes 2 minutes(!) at 2400 dpi (which gives you about a 6 megapixel file). This is only to scan a 1" x 1.5" area! So to do a 24-exposure roll would take you a full hour and require your constant presence. Forget about 4800 dpi or higher unless you really really need that higher resolution and have lots of time on your hands.
- Mounted slides cannot be accommodated.

Even when I did all this, I was not satisfied with the result for 35 mm film scans. 600 dpi scans of 3x5" 30-year-old prints gave better results than 2400 dpi scans of the 30-year-old negatives (both well archived) and my Fujitsu Scansnap s1300 scanner (see separate review) does the prints at about 5 times the speed. The problem with scanning the negatives is that it is very very difficult to remove all the dust and fine lint particles from the negative, the platen, the lightbox, etc., and these are greatly amplified in the scan, not to mention scratches. Even ignoring this, there was no noticeably better dynamic range in the result from the negatives compared to the prints (even the matte-finish prints!), the bottom line being that having both negatives and prints, I got far more visually pleasing results from the prints.

For other flatbed scanning needs, one of the more compact Canon models (I do like them for flatbed scanners, as I do Fujitsu for sheet-fed ones) would probably be more space- and cost-effective than this one.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on January 11, 2014
I've had this scanner for about 5 months now and have scanned around 400-500 old photos, some for printing. The scan quality is excellent, and photos I've printed from scans are as good as the original.

** Issue with auto-crop on multiple photos

As other users have reported, I also started having issues with the multiple photo auto-crop feature after a couple of uses. I went to the Canon website to look for software updates and downloaded the updated MP Navigator software, scanner driver, and a couple of other plugins. After that, the auto crop started working again..

The driver and software versions that shipped with the scanner I purchased in September 2013 were from 2011. The updated versions on the Canon website were issued November 2013 and probably address a lot of common issues reported since this model's release in 2009.

I'm not sure if this link will get automatically deleted after publishing this review, but here is the address to the driver and software updates for this model on Canon's website - copy and past into your browser:
You might not always get a perfect crop especially with older photos with rounded edges, but there are easy-to-use crop and rotate tools in MP Navigator Ex. You can crop and rotate all your scans, then batch save them to a folder of your choice or one the software auto-creates with the day's date.

** Photo Quality

Scan quality is crisp and clear - as stated above, you can scan up to 9600 dpi. If the scanning software isn't working for you, you can also choose the scanner driver option and use custom settings.

I recently purchased the Canon PIXMA MG7120 Printer and Canon Photo Paper Glossy and have printed over 50 photos to send to my grandmother. The quality is simply amazing. Even after over 50 photos, I am still amazed every time I print a new one. You can't go wrong with Canon products when it comes to photos.

** Flim Scanner

The first time you use it, it may take about 10 minutes to calibrate the film scanner, but after that you're all set. You can only scan one photo at a time, but it's not too hard to use.

Just make sure you check the film or the preview to make sure you're scanning the right side; one strip of film I scanned came out with the date stamp backwards.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on June 24, 2013
Only been using it for two days, but so far I'm impressed on just about every count.

I'm using Windows 8 and installation was easy enough, run the setup on disk and restart when prompted before plugging the device in. It didn't recognize at all until I had restarted but once it did it did so immediately and was recognized by Photoshop 7.

Things have definitely improved in the flatbed scanner world since my last one, a Umax bought sometime in the middle of the last decade. First off, no power cord, power and data both in the provided cable. Despite that, it scans reasonably fast at lower resolutions and while a 9600 dpi negative scan takes 10 minutes or so, that's somewhat understandable given it's a LOT of data.

The scan software is pretty thorough and straightforward (very little customization of the interface, which is good), I prefer to do all my own editing but the scan software does a pretty good job of automatically setting the levels/contrast and descreening (mostly just a very light blurring)if you let it. It also gives you options for what sort of scan you want (photo, film negative/positive, document, etc) and color/b&w/greyscale. Negatives give you the option to go ahead and correct them during the scan so you don't have to invert and adjust. There's basic and advanced options depending on your comfort level. The only drawback observed so far is even B/W negatives default to color despite only needing greyscale.

Picture quality is great with good color accuracy and range. At the max optical resolution (9600 dpi) it looks a little blurry at the 1:1 pixel level but trust me, at that level you're probably going to be shrinking and sharpening the image anyway out so it's still more than adequate. The film scanner portion is a little clunky in that negative strips aren't actually locked in so you can easily bump them off kilter and you have to be careful when setting the light down on top of them/closing the lid. BUT once you get that down, I haven't seen any of the problems with negative scans reported in other reviews. I scanned several color and b/w negatives and got great results, they matched the finished photos (both hand and store developed) every time. They were certainly better than the dedicated film scanner I paid a ridiculous amount for a few years back (and twice the resolution).

So for half the price I paid for my last scanner I'm getting 8x the optical resolution, 10 times the color accuracy, half the weight, 0 wall warts (the last one you could beat someone to death with) and the ability to scan 35mm negatives/slides. There may be better scanners out there but for a budget scanner this thing is well worth the price.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on August 19, 2016
I purchased this exclusively due to the flat platen on one side of the scanning surface for scanning oversized items. Scanning oversized mat board performed reasonably well from my Photoshop. CC 2015 although the scan options are very limited. As for the scan quality and color accuracy... the colors were way off requiring significant adjusting... though I'm accustomed to that, and my primary requirement was the flat platen area which I was unable to find in any other device at this price level... thus the 4 stars. I purchase the scanner used and it arrived very poorly packaged due to way too little stuffing... no fault of the manufacturer. The locking mechanism was engaged and likely protected the unit during shipping. The Cannon scan software that was included offered more scanning options than was available through Photoshop so I found myself scanning through the scanners software and saving the file before opening in PS.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on November 11, 2013
The scanner does exactly as it should. I have no real complaints about it. I used this to scan a lot of old photos from my father's days in the Air Force. It does a great job of capturing the old photos, and really made them look good. I didn't need to use the hinged cover, but I can see how if you were scanning a book it would be helpful. I tried to use the negative adapter, but I guess negatives must have been a different size back then because it didn't seem to fit. To be fair, these negatives were from somewhere in the 60's, so I'm sure more recent ones would probably be fine.
Overall, it is a solid performer. There are probably better ones out there if you want to spend more money, but for this price point, it is a good scanner.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on April 26, 2013
I gave up on my Epson 4490 because it would no longer make copies or pdf items. Epson, no longer supports their creative suite. I was unable to download any software from them to make those things work. Of course the 4490 was more than 5 years old and did work otherwise well in scanning and OCR. Wow, what a worthwhile investment! What a change from yesterdays technology to todays. One plug into the computer...... what set up? the disc? directions, so simple a non computer person could probably work it out. It takes less than a minute to scan something, the OCR is a miracle. I have my new document in seconds.
Thanks Epson for forcing me to purchase another canon product. My last Canon printer lived for 15 years, and yeah it was a color printer.
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on February 9, 2014
I have been using this item nearly 3 years. Scanning documents or photo prints is a snap. Perfect if you have a paper document you want to email.

First time I tried scanning film negatives, I got error 2,142,0 (backlight not working). In my case this was fixed by simply plugging the backlight unit's cord all the way into the scanner; the plug goes in farther than one would think. It is designed to handle only 35mm negatives; I have some narrower and shorter format negatives from some forgotten camera and have not yet gotten a good scan, but I am still working on that.

When I first got it, I ran it on a Windows XP machine. Just got a Windows 8.1 machine, downloaded new software and driver files from Canon and the LiDE 700F works perfectly with the new machine.

For what it does, and the longevity, the LiDE 700F is a fantastic bargain.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 8, 2010
Regardless of any negative reviews you may read about this mighty little marvel of modern technology, its all relative to your own knowledge of devices and software. This scanner is great! Even the software Arcsoft photo studio, is great [Considering its basically FREE!]. Some people tend to write their reviews before fully getting the hang of their new product. I can honestly attest that you cant go wrong buying this scanner. It has much more settings and configurations than most in its price range, and many features found on much more higher end scanners. If your even halfway knowledgeable with computers and software you will find this scanner to be pure delight. And you'll be laughing all the way to the bank over the price your paying for such fine equipment. Your reproductions will be perfect! The included Arcsoft Photo Studio is certainly no photoshop, but its very sufficient, and has lots of choices to adjust your scans. Some reviewers have complained that the scanner cover door seems cheaply made, no its not cheaply made, you just have to be gentle with it as with almost ALL devices of this nature. If your going to be careless and rough with it than it will be YOUR fault if it breaks!I cant review the 35mm film scanning feature because i haven't tried it. Thanks for reading this and be confident that this is a great little scanner.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse