Exerience with CanoScan scanners?

<p>Anyone have any experience with scanning negatives and slides on the Canoscan 8800f or 4400f or any others in this price range (<$100-200)? How do the scans compare with those done on pricey Nikon scanners?</p>

<p>I had an older canoscan 6 something. It was ok, I have a minolta dual IV thatI really like. Although sony does not support them. If you are going to scan very many it is worth it buy a nice film scanner. That my 2 cents worth.</p>

<p>Thanks Heath. I should have finished reading all of the previous posts on this issue. I found many opinions there and it appears that the flatbed scanners are almost always considered inferior to the dedicated film scanners. I just can't afford a new Coolscan right now. Since I have hundreds of old negatives and slides I wish to scan, the cost of lab scanning is also a bit steep. And although I will post some of these on the web, I will probably want to print a few of them. Maybe a flatbed like the 8800f will suffice for the majority of my scanning needs and for the few I chose for larger prints I can send to a lab.</p>

<p>A dedicated film scanner is best, however some flatbeds do an acceptable job for up to 8x10 from 35mm.<br>

Epson V700is a top flatbed for film.</p>

<p>Flatbed scans are inferior to those from dedicated film scanners. You do get what you pay for, in this instance. Perhaps the best reason to use a Coolscan is for the "digital ice" feature that automagically removes scratches and spots from the image. Saves an INCREDIBLE amount of time if you have a lot of scanning to do.</p>

<p>I just noticed that some flatbeds offer digital ice now, too. Might be acceptable for your needs.</p>

<p>I use a CanoScan 9950F for casual duty and it's just okay. It seems at its best with medium format and 4X5 and works well at scanning actual prints (b&w). It seems especially good at picking up subtle tonal renditions in prints at 8X10 sizes. For some reason, when I print the scans, they surprise me at being better than they appear on screen. I don't rely on the FARE feature and I'd put the scanner in a category with the Epsons, better at some things and lesser on others.</p>

<p>I have a 4400, and the hardware's fine, but the software is dreadful. Doesn't work reliably on an Intel Mac.</p>

<p>8800F will do for web and small prints. 4400F takes only one strip at a time, so working with hundreds of negs will be slooow. Post processing film scans takes some time, I hope you don't expect good quality straight from the scanner. Forget anything over 2400dpi (about 7Mp file from 35mm), you just get large and messy image but no extra detail. Contrasty slides will be very difficult (but even exposure ones give surprisingly nice quality).<br>

Nikons are almost like going from 35mm to medium format, you get what you pay for.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your input. At this point, I need to wait until I have sufficient funds to buy anything, and will probably end up getting a decent quality flatbed for general use and then send out for enlargments for those few that I might chose.</p>