CanoScan 9000F Mark II
4.7
5
3
3
Canon 9000F Mark II Scanner
As any real photographer knows when it comes to equipment, the proof is in the photograph. That being said, the following is a photographer oriented review in that image quality is valued first and foremost.
I picked up my 9000 F Mark II two days ago and since then I have run a number of real-world tests on it. Unfortunately, I could not compare it to the original 9000 F since I don't have one available, however, my 9000 F Mark II seems to perform better based on the early reviews of the original 9000 F. I'll speak to that momentarily, but keep in mind that I cannot really account for the validity of anyone else's results. So in fact, there may be indeed be no difference in image quality between recent manufacturers of the two models.
This is a summary of what I did found on the Mark II:
Regarding Platen use with flat documents and photographs, I found the scanner to be very fast, and it produced excellent quality in terms of color accuracy and neutrality. In fact, after profiling it with two different IT8 targets using third-party software I found that all this resulted in was a loss of color neutrality and an exaggeration of contrast, which I really didn't care for on either count. In reality, the Canon ScanGear software produced the best results and was much easier to work with. At 300 dpi with 48 bit color it averaged around 9 seconds for an A4 size document and it produced a 51 MB Tiff file, which I found to be more than adequate for PDFs that were much better than than my MX870 or Lide600F. At 600 dpi it took 26 seconds to produce a 48 bit 102 MB Tiff file that would be better for larger reproductions. At 1200 dpi it took 1 min. and 44 seconds to produce a 409 MB 48 bit Tiff file that was, very critically speaking, sharper than the 600 dpi scan, however, you have to uncheck the thumbnail view in ScanGear to do this and you would never be able to tell the difference on an 8 x 10 anyway. So I'm going with 600 dpi as a standard for photographs, because frankly there's no good reason for more especially when you just start to see ink jet patterns and minute dust, aside from simple fact that a 102 MB file doesn't take a supercomputer linked to server farms for storage, unlike the 409 MB 1200 dpi files when things begin to add up.
Film Scanning
After a number of tests I found that 2400 dpi resulted in the sharpest scans, which may not seem to make sense at first but it was true nevertheless. Even with FARE Medium enabled it only took an average of 1 min. and 30 seconds on Kodachrome to produce a 40 MB 48 bit Tiff file. Increasing the resolution to 4800 dpi or 9600 dpi was a real loser on three fronts. First the sharpness got progressively worse at these "higher dpi settings", the times increased dramatically, as well as the file sizes, which reached an absurd 625 MB 48 bit Tiff, again with fare enabled. So 2400 dpi with FARE enabled (which did not effect the sharpness) was the winner! While again I couldn't compare the film performance with the 9000 F original I was able to compare it to my older dedicated film scanner the CanoScan FS4000US, which could only be used with third-party software and produced considerably more noise. In terms of resolution though the dedicated film scanner was better, although it wasn't very noticeable on 4 x 6 prints and took a good deal of advanced Photoshop techniques to fully utilize. So for smaller print reproductions, speed (1 min. 30 seconds compared to 8 min. 30 seconds on the old film scanner) and the color quality of the color negative scans I'll definitely use my 9000 F Mark II for archiving and cataloging and when I have one of those well-crafted images that I want to print large I'll simply rescan on the film scanner, which by the way is not supported on the newer operating systems unless you purchase third-party software that includes its own drivers.
In conclusion, I am really happy with the scanner at least partially because I didn't expect magical results on critically high quality film images. As I mentioned earlier, even though I could not compare it to the original 9000 F I did not find any problems whatsoever in terms of overall image quality and ease-of-use based on my real-world tests, in fact I found that the new ScanGear produced excellent color overall and particularly with regard to color negatives. This differs from what some earlier reviews of the original 9000 F claimed to be issues. Even for film scans I found that the quality was really not an issue unless you're going 8 x 10 or larger with a really good original.
Hope this helps.
March 22, 2013
Good Product
I waited for this product for several months. It is good and it is fast. I really like this product so far. Got it to scan old color slide and old pictures.
I do not like the software. It has crashed on me a couple of times. It needs to show an indicator when it is working. It does not have any correction for out of focus. It is not intuitive.
I can not say how rugged or durable it is as I have not had it very long.
I would add a copy of a scanned color slide or two but they don't allow in these reviews. I think they would want to.
February 21, 2013
"A" rating for the CanoScan 9000F, varied uses....
I am happy with the CanoScan 9000F, and I use the scanner to scan negatives, slides, photographs and documents, both for business and personal photography interest.
I have had very, very little issues with quality, regarding the ability to focus in, adjust or manipulate scans. I am happy with the functionality of the software regarding adjusting the scans and giving me options, not just variable DPI and photoshop software, but actually being able to adjust the quality of the scans.
I have used the scanner to scan very old black and white negatives, as well as fairly old color negatives, also both black and white slides have come out very nice, and of course pictures and documents are no trouble. Different trays come with it, and you either fit in your slides, negatives, pictures or documents, and the accessories easily fit to keep the slides, etc., in the right place, and easy to move on to the next set of scans.
I use an iMac, and really enjoy the one button push scans that I can quickly email, store in folders and do one of many things.
The bottom line, this scanner is very reasonable, which is a nice surprise. I have been able to save many many images that are 50 to 80 years old, and not hurt the media, all for a very low price. I have had the CanoScan for some time, and have had no problems with it what so ever. If your in the market looking around, and you are on a budget, buy this scanner!!
January 16, 2013
Feedback
Cameras
Windows Support
More Photos
Compare
