| Customer Reviews Collected from usa.canon.com |
Canon - 9000F Mark II Flatbed Scanner - Black
Average Customer Rating:
4.1
Rating breakdown 74 reviews
5 Stars
47
4 Stars
9
3 Stars
5
2 Stars
4
1 Star
9
80%of customers recommend this product.
(
48 out of
60)
Customer Reviews for Canon - 9000F Mark II Flatbed Scanner - Black
Customer Rating
5
Excellent scanner
on March 7, 2016
Posted by: Yves
from Cornwall, NY
I bought this scanner in June 2014 to replace an old Microtek scanner. Haven't had any problems with this product. I noticed some reviews complaining about incompatibility with Windows 10. I have not had this problem since I upgraded from Win 8 to 10 early in 2015.
I would recommend this to a friend!
Written by a customer while visiting usa.canon.com
Customer Rating
5
Canon 9000F Mark II Scanner
on March 22, 2013
Posted by: BeVisual
from Harpers Ferry, WV
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.
Pros: Fast Connectivity, High resolution, High-speed scanning, easy to use, color quality, color accuracy
I would recommend this to a friend!
Written by a customer while visiting usa.canon.com
Customer Rating
5
Fabulous performer in this price range!
on September 30, 2010
Posted by: Gecko
from Ashburn, VA
I sold a competing professional scanner that cost me more than double the the price of the CanoScan 9000F. The 9000F has been phenomenal. I'll divide my review into three categories: speed, quality, and user interface. ____ SPEED: I just couldn't get around to scanning anything with the other one because the wait with every scan is just agonizing. It sounds like it's has to rev up its engine every time. On the other hand, The speed and agility of the 9000F are impressive. I place several pictures at a time on the glass to scan, and the software lets you independently select the settings for each picture, mixing resolutions and corrections. Then it goes and scans each one separately. And because the LED light requires no warm-up time, it works immediately you can just get so much done! I scanned over 150 pictures in the first few days of having this scanner -- more than I did in the two years I had the other one. However, do keep in mind that when scanning film and slides, scanning speed will be reduced drastically -- that's just the way it is, regardless of the scanner. _____ QUALITY: The other scanner actually did a slightly better job with dust and scratch removal using Digital ICE. The 9000F uses FARE, which works well, but seems to not be quite as effective. Scans on the 9000F tend to be slightly more blue, but you can tweak that correction easily. ______ INTERFACE: The user interface is a bit clugey (sp?), but it does everything it needs to, and while you're scanning a large number of pics it stores them in its own catalog until you're finished, then saves the files in one single sweep. The software seems to not retain some settings (I keep having to uncheck a box to create subfolders by scan date), but overall works very well. _____ CONCLUSION: If I had to choose on one hand between having the best professional scanner and never using it because it's just too slow -- and on the other hand having a great scanner like the 9000F and using it like crazy, I would definitely take Option B. I highly recommend the 9000F for its beautiful design, easy setup, very good scanning quality, easy photo correction settings, ability to scan several pics at once, and impressive speed!
Cons: won't handle medium format, slow on slides & film
I would recommend this to a friend!
Written by a customer while visiting usa.canon.com
Customer Rating
5
An amazing performer for the price
on December 15, 2010
Posted by: Dr. Don
from Exeter, CA
I have been very hesitant to try a flatbed scanner for my medium format positives & negatives. The 9000f has been a most pleasant surprise; it has far exceeded my expectations. I have a 35mm/medium format dedicated film scanner that will not function with Win 7 and there are no updates available from the manufacturer. The 9000f cost less than 10% as much and has much higher resolution. So far, so good.
Pros: Fast Connectivity, High resolution, High-speed scanning, easy to use
Cons: no mounted 6x6 film guide
I would recommend this to a friend!
Written by a customer while visiting usa.canon.com
Customer Rating
5
Best money I ever spent !
on September 22, 2011
Posted by: RP
from PA
I just finished scanning 30 or more carousels of 100 each 35 mm slides These slides were from 1948 up until 1979. The quality of the scanned product is unbelievably good. I have printed some out from 1948 and they are very good. The scanner is user friendly and sooooo easy to use. When you scan the four slides at a time they come up on the monitor large enough to see the images in detail. It is so great to bring back all the memories from the past and know the photos are preserved. I plan to transfer them to DVDs and flash drives for my family I love this scanner!!
Pros: Compact Design, durable, Fast Connectivity, High resolution, High-speed scanning, easy to use, i set it up myself in 5 minutes or so i am a 78 ye
I would recommend this to a friend!
Written by a customer while visiting usa.canon.com
Customer Rating
5
just get one
on January 4, 2011
Posted by: rick
well i'm a huge fan of my other canon products. lets just say this dosen't dissaponit. quick/easy set up. logical interface with my windows7 / elements 8 photo stuff. i was stunned by the quality of scans from slides with difficult lighting conditions i.e. low light or sun / shadow conditions. can't wait to start bringing back to useful life the countless slides i have from the dinasour age of film cameras
Pros: Fast Connectivity, High resolution, High-speed scanning, easy to use
I would recommend this to a friend!
Written by a customer while visiting usa.canon.com
Customer Rating
5
on March 4, 2011
Posted by: Ed
from Seattle
I have scanned several hundred (of 7-8,000) slides and 50 or so documents. I was wowed when it turned a scan of four 80 year old snapshots into four separate files of digital slides! I am well impressed with the ease, quality, and speed of my CanoScan 9000F.
My biggest problem is that many of my slides are 127 size film, square pictures that fit in the regular 2x2 slide. I've learned, from Canon's support crew how to stretch the cropping (or is it UN-cropping) to get the whole slide scanned, but that works one at a time and is very slow. If it can scan 35mm in portrait or landscape, why can't I get a square picture? And when it does scan my 127s, it tries to find the best direction to crop it: portrait or landscape, often missing what think is best, so I sometimes cover the 127 slide with an empty 35mm slide to frame it. Without that, the scanner sometimes crops the 127s surprisingly narrower or wider than expected.
The only other improvement I'd suggest is a special bell or sound at the end of the scan to alert me to get on with scanning. Thanks for a fine piece of equipment.
My biggest problem is that many of my slides are 127 size film, square pictures that fit in the regular 2x2 slide. I've learned, from Canon's support crew how to stretch the cropping (or is it UN-cropping) to get the whole slide scanned, but that works one at a time and is very slow. If it can scan 35mm in portrait or landscape, why can't I get a square picture? And when it does scan my 127s, it tries to find the best direction to crop it: portrait or landscape, often missing what think is best, so I sometimes cover the 127 slide with an empty 35mm slide to frame it. Without that, the scanner sometimes crops the 127s surprisingly narrower or wider than expected.
The only other improvement I'd suggest is a special bell or sound at the end of the scan to alert me to get on with scanning. Thanks for a fine piece of equipment.
Pros: High resolution, High-speed scanning, easy to use
Cons: doesn't know how to handle my 127 size film slides
I would recommend this to a friend!
Written by a customer while visiting usa.canon.com
Customer Rating
5
Great for dredging up old family memories!
on January 18, 2017
Posted by: Jessica89
from NC
I bought this scanner this summer and originally wasn't using it much. We'd just received about 6 boxes full of old slides and negatives and I had the best intentions but not clear timeline. Fast forward to the last week and now we are moving and I have no intention of taking those boxes with me. Now I'm powering through and I'm so impressed with this scanner. The picture quality is plenty good enough for what we want (to access and share all these long forgotten pictures) and the scanner itself is very intuitive. I love that the plastic attachments make each slide scan in as an individual picture in the desired orientation. So far I'm happy scanning slides, film, and printed pictures.
I would recommend this to a friend!
Written by a customer while visiting usa.canon.com