CANOSCAN 8800F FLATBED comments?

[aaron said]

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I have heard very good comments about this scanner..... actually some people have told me they are happier with this scanner comparing to the Epson V750....<br>

I am planing to scan 6X7 slides from my mamiya.... has anyone tried this scanner for medium format?<br>

Do you think it will make a nice job for MF film? of course I am not expecting the best, cause the scanner is not expesive at all.....<br>

What do you guys think? I would like to hear your comments.... Thanks</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I have the Canoscan 9950F, but many of the film students here in our photography program use the 8800F for their medium and large film scans. I'm very pleased with the 9950F, both for flatbed and film scanning.</p>

[goodharbor]

<p>I get pleasing results from my 8800F ... 35mm (scans with and without sprocket holes) and for 6x6 on 120 (I use Arista.Edu Ultra 200 ASA in my Yashica 635 TLR). I highly recommend its price/performance ratio.</p>

<p><a title="Sharp Edges and Leafless Trees by goodharbor, on Flickr" href=" title="Sharp Edges and Leafless Trees by goodharbor, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/3045051229_b3ba117506.jpg" alt="Sharp Edges and Leafless Trees" width="500" height="500" /> </a></p>

[leicaglow]

<p>JDM, can you clarify something for me? I looked at the 8800F for doing 4x5 scans, but it seems from the Canon site, and what I've read, that it won't accomodate anything larger than MF film. Here is what Canon's site says:</p>

<p>"35mm x 12 Frames (Negative/Positive), 35mm x 4 Frames (Negative / Positive Mounted Slides), 22cm x 6 Film Strip (120 Roll Film)"</p>

<p>I got the impression, from what I've read, that it is not a true replacement for the 9950F, which I understand does do LF negs.</p>

[roseberry guitars]

<p>I have this scanner and use it mainly for MF black and white. I think it is a very good product for the money. It will scan up to 6 x 12 with many variations between. You can scan from 50 up to 9600dpi but I've never tried beyond 4800dpi...might take a week to scan the negative ;) Actually the stated scanning speed is 1.5 - 36.3msec/line. Seems pretty standard for this level of scanner.</p>

<p>I am sure you cannot scan LF negs. The light source will not cover a size wider than 120 film. But you can scan a print up to 8.5 x 11.69.</p>

<p> </p>

[chrise_boris]

<p>I think it is a superb scanner considering its price. The canoscan software is perfectly alright and neither vuescan nor silverfast will improve scans. Dmax is surprisingly good but a few slides just dont scan well, but for the most part its really ok! I have set up a gallery with 6x7 scans <a href="http://cceder.com/gallery/p67_index.html">here</a> .</p>

<p>I haven't used the Epson, but I reckon its a tad better than the Canon but considering the price gap I am not so sure...</p>

[berlinhennig]

<p>Canon 8800 <em>vs.</em> Epson V750<br>

————————————————————————————<br>

Half price & double time (3 instead of 6 pictures)<br>

1600 dpi <em>vs.</em> 2300 dpi (everything above is theoretical)<br>

————————————————————————————</p>

[tmcleland]

I've been using the Canon 8600F (which is essentially the same scanner as near as I can tell) and, especially given the price

point, I've been very happy with it. I've done several Lightjet and ChromeRA prints from these scans (from my Mamiya 645) and

they turned out beautifully, both from color slides and BW negative film. I've had less than spectacular results with C41 film,

though that could just be something I'M doing wrong.

 

Though a minor nit, I've noticed it DOES tend to err towards the red, and goes out of calibration very quickly, so be sure to have

it set to calibrate each time you scan. That said, it retains my Velvia "bling" very well. And as said, it's slow, but not horribly so.

A 3200 DPI 645 takes around 5-6 minutes, and you can save yourself a little time by not using the rotate/flip features in the

software (IOW, let Photoshop do it). No biggie in either case; go watch some TV. ;)

 

All in all, I would certainly buy it again.

[JDMvW]

<p>Actually, I don't know what "templates" there are on the 8800, but I have done a fair amount of scanning of larger negatives even when they were larger than the templates available on the 9950F . You can scan without the template, and I'd suspect that is true of the 8800 too. The templates make it easier.</p>

[dweezil]

<p>You cannot use bigger film than 120/220 even with self made templates as the light source in the cover is too small.<br>

One minor drawback is that the 8800 and most of the other Canon scanners are Windows/Mac only there is no support for Linux use.<br>

The image quality is good certainly for the price</p>

[hubert_seremak]

<p>Scanner is simply great. I used some scanners before, I tried Agfa and Epson, and well - for the price of 8800F you get very, I mean it, very good results. I am not using attached Silverfast software, just simple Canon software. You can check some photos of mine here:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/26921506@N05/</p>

<p><img src=" alt="" /></p>

<p>Almost no photo has any PS added, except for adjusting some, very little amount of contrast (but still I do it very seldom). 95 % of them was scanned with 8800F , most of them with only 25 or 30 % possible size (scanned with 100 % possible size could result in HUGE file size, so for internet and web I scan smaller size). The true quality could be seen when you enlarge scanned immage - it shines - please mind, that flickr is adjusting photo size (so you can;t see true quality there) - I would go for this scanner again without any hesitation.</p>

<p>cheers!</p>