Canon 8600F vs 8800f scanners

[newindustar]

<p>Has anyone worked with both of these to compare?</p>

<p> I Googled quite hard on this and cannot find much. Of course I know the 8800f has the no warm-up time lamps. Usually hte conversation is vs Epson models.</p>

<p>Mostly intereted in sharpness and other image quality for MF and 35mm. Stand alone software would be nice, hate having to tie up PS while scanning.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[symple]

<p>I have an 8600F and a Minolta Scan Dual IV. I have scanned positives in 6x7 and 35mm with the 8600F as well as small prints and it is okay for creating albums online for family, but I haven't been pleased with it for quality work. I abandoned some of my scanning projects because the 8600F didn't produce the quality I wanted for 35mm, and the Minolta takes a ridiculous amount of time to do good scans in 35mm. I wish I had got together with a couple of people to make a purchase on the top of the line Nikon scanner, all of us make our scans, and then sell it, but that didn't happen. The 8600F interface is pretty good, but it is still essentially a document scanner that can produce excellent files for PDFs and the like, but otherwise it is just adequate for casual use in image scanning. I haven't used the 8800F, but I can't see it being that much different from the rest of the family. <br>

Maybe be more specific in your usage plans and someone can give you a better answer. One thing about the 8600F that I like is that the 64bit driver works fine in Windows 7 and 64bit, but I have to stay with 32bit XP for the Minolta and the difference in OS speed makes 32bit XP brutal to go back to and the scanner speed just magnifies my frustration.</p>

[newindustar]

<p>I had done so much trying to get the best of both Epson 4870 and V700 on 120, the worst issues were ICE related. I had the 8600 new in a box so did not want to open it. Finally out of desperation with the Epsons I did and and found it better than both Epsons on 120, quite surprisingly as they get so little press and the Epsons get all the attention. Of course now I wonder if the 8800 might be even better but now I have the open box 8600. On 35mm I am still not sure if I prefer the Epsons or the canon, one would think 120 or 35 would be the same but I am not sure yet. of course my Nikon Coolscan is better than all of the on 35mm.</p>

<p>That 8600 vs 8800 is an elusive discussion. Thanks for your feedback on the 8600.</p>

 

[symple]

<p>I agree with the ICE issues, and would say that the 8600 and 120(6x7) files are satisfactory for larger prints, but I also took more care storing my 120 rolls than my slides. Let us know what you end up using for 35mm please, and if you can get up to say 11x14 prints from the files without spending two hours retouching dust, grain, scratches... Thanks.</p>

[newindustar]

<p>Here's some quick feedback.</p>

<p>Canon Scangear vs Epsons with various softwares.Mostly based on 120 neg film so far.</p>

<p>Canon better tonality, better preservation of highlights.<br>

Canon serious ICE issues absent but FARE not as effective on dirty film as ICE. Highest Fare setting results in very little softening, ICE softens more. Fare much more effective than Vuescan IR cleaning on dirty film. Fare has no artifacts issues and can tolerate more sharpening. Fare does not react badly with the same films that reacted very badly with High or low ICE on V700 (with certain films), or single ICE issue on 4870 (with certain films), a different issue than V700 ICE issues.</p>

<p>Conclusion Fare fewer issues than ICE but will let you down if film not fairly clean to start with, cannot handle hairs etc..<br>

Canon Scangear single level sharpening very usable but have to be careful with additional post sharpening. Epson scan- time sharpening better leave off on Epsons especially with ICE on.</p>

<p>Canon sharper than either Epson on 120, undecided on 35mm.</p>

<p>Canon far less sensitive to height, better depth of field which starts at the glass to a generous amount upwards, Epsons to0 sensitive to height and flatness, especially the V700, 4870 superior in this regard.</p>

<p>Horrible having to have PS tied up with Scangear while scanning and no standalone scangear.</p>

<p>Canon faster than 4870 and possibly V700 when loaded up with 120, high res, cleaning, 48 bit etc. on 120, but unduly slow on 35mm.<br>

Color controls limited on canon but color is good anyway.</p>