Any info on the Canon 9000F?

[Derek Lofgreen]

Besides what is in the Canon press release and product pages? Seems like it could be a nice little flatbed for the price.

D.

 

[Marco B]

Besides what is in the Canon press release and product pages? Seems like it could be a nice little flatbed for the price.

D.

Well, nothing wrong with my Canon 9950F (one of the predecessors of this new 9000F) for basic flatbed work, but I will eat my head if this thing really scans 9600 ppi.

My 9950F boasted 4800 ppi, while in reality, it does a measly 1200 true optical resolution or so... Good enough for a scan of a 4x5 LF negative and scanning of prints, but it totally sucks for 35mm.

You should be lucky if the new 9000F makes it to a comparable figure as the Epson V700/V750, and they stop at 2400 ppi max resolution or so, according to all I read...

Don't belief the bull shit of the manufacturers until someone really has tested it...

 

[glhs116]

The worst thing is that whilst the "detail" stops at typically less than 2000dpi on these flatbeds they really do give you a full 9600dpi or whatever of pixels. This means heavy files for not much benefit.

Still, I'd love to be wrong!

 

[Marco B]

I also had to laugh, when I saw these two marketing slogans:

- The CanoScan 9000F is also capable of scanning up to four 35mm slides or 12 35mm filmstrips at one time further adding to its archival capabilities.

The highlighted section is wrong, it should be 12 frames in probably two strips of 6 frames... No way 12 strips of film would fit on any A4 flatbed. And now here is the catch: My 9950F can do five strips of 6 frames in one go... that is three more than this new one, and 30 frames in total. The LED lightsource in the top must be smaller than the cold cathode in mine.

- Scans one 35 mm frame in just 18 seconds.........at 1200 dpi!!!!!!

It's supposed to be faster, but this ridiculous figure seriously makes me doubt it. My 9950F does something similar at this ridiculous low dpi.

 

[Doug Fisher]

As I wrote in another forum today, I could be wrong but when I got the news about this last week my first reaction was that they pulled a page out of the Epson playbook and just basically put a new wrapper on the previous optical hardware like it appears Epson did with the V500 to V600. It is the same price point as the 8800F's MSRP and the change to 9600 dpi in the second direction sounds more like output "massaging" versus real resolution. I could be wrong, but I guess after experiencing "upgrades" that were really more about marketing numbers than real upgrades, I am just skeptical.

Doug

 

[GREGGAN]

I plan to review it A:S:A to find out if this scanner is a development or just a new coat
The review will be found at http://www.stockholmviews.com/canon_9000f_review/ when the scanner arrives.

Rgds/Stefan

 

[Marco B]

I plan to review it A:S:A to find out if this scanner is a development or just a new coat
The review will be found at http://www.stockholmviews.com/canon_9000f_review/ when the scanner arrives.

Rgds/Stefan

Considering your review of the 8800F, which seems to be producing about the same blurry scans as mine 9950F, I doubt the 9000F will show any real improvement, besides that new "coat" . No where in Canon's marketing slogans is any reference to real improvements, like the real, although still limited, improvement of the Epson V7XX dual lens system, or even better, the autofocus system of something like a Microtek ArtixScan M1.

But I don't have to tell you that, with your nice old FS4000 beating the 8800F hands down

 

[the_minds_eye]

I bought a CanoScan 9000F with a betterscanning.com MF film holder. I wanted to try this out for myself. So far, I like it. I can significantly beat the quality of the budget scans I get back from my color processor, and it is fast, and easy to use.


Quick update for anyone wanting to know what this is really capable of. This review claims the actual optical resolution is ~1700 dpi:

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000F.html