Canon Scanner

Ockham's Razor wrote:
> In article
> <Mencken-34D865.16534221072007.DeleteThis@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Ockham's Razor <Mencken.DeleteThis@pdx.net> wrote:
>
>> Has anyone had any experience with the Canon 8600 F scanner for film?
>> It has almost un-believable resolution, USB 2 and a kajillion colors at
>> a very reasonable price.
>>
>> I have a Nikon film scanner for slides and film strips so that possible
>> need is not an issue.
>>
>> TIA
>
> Whoops, should have said for prints and pictures.
>
I have the 8400F, which is very similar to the 8600F; just a year or two
older. It does a super job on photos and documents and handles slides
better than my venerable,(circa 2000), H-P Model S20 slide scanner
Priced right too.
Bob Williams
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Scanner 

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:13:46 -0700, Bob Williams
<mytbobnospam DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote:


>I have the 8400F, which is very similar to the 8600F; just a year or two
>older. It does a super job on photos and documents and handles slides
>better than my venerable,(circa 2000), H-P Model S20 slide scanner
>Priced right too.
>Bob Williams

I can't find that scanner locally but they have the Canon CanoScan
Scanner (CS8600F). Is that one better or about the same?
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Scanner 

Gladiator wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:13:46 -0700, Bob Williams
> <mytbobnospam DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I have the 8400F, which is very similar to the 8600F; just a year or two
>> older. It does a super job on photos and documents and handles slides
>> better than my venerable,(circa 2000), H-P Model S20 slide scanner
>> Priced right too.
>> Bob Williams
>
> I can't find that scanner locally but they have the Canon CanoScan
> Scanner (CS8600F). Is that one better or about the same?

The 8400F is a discontinued model. Manufacturers do this routinely, so
they can introduce a NEW Model. In this case the NEW model is the 8600F.
I've never used it but I would suspect that it is at least as good as
the 8400F and the price is only slightly higher.

One thing I like about the 8400F is that I can purchase brand new
Generic ink cartridges for about 1/3 the price of Canon cartridges.
I have printed the same picture on the same Glossy photo paper, using
Canon and Generic ink. I could not see ANY difference.
Even after sitting around in my office for months, I still see no
difference.
I've never checked whether Generic ink cartridges are available for the
8600F. Sometimes the manufacturer will introduce a tiny physical change
in the cartridge so cartridges from the previous model do not fit.
It takes the Generic ink providers a while to tool up to make the new
cartridges. By that time, another "New and Improved" model is
introduced. It is a cat and mouse game.
Check http://www.mrinkman or http://www.printpal to see if they have
generics available for the 8600F.
Bob Williams
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Scanner 

In article <gHOoi.31919$QF3.881@newsfe13.phx>,
Bob Williams <mytbobnospam.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:

> Gladiator wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:13:46 -0700, Bob Williams
> > <mytbobnospam.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I have the 8400F, which is very similar to the 8600F; just a year or two
> >> older. It does a super job on photos and documents and handles slides
> >> better than my venerable,(circa 2000), H-P Model S20 slide scanner
> >> Priced right too.
> >> Bob Williams
> >
> > I can't find that scanner locally but they have the Canon CanoScan
> > Scanner (CS8600F). Is that one better or about the same?

I think it is the same thing. Check the Canon web site.

>
> One thing I like about the 8400F is that I can purchase brand new
> Generic ink cartridges for about 1/3 the price of Canon cartridges.
> I have printed the same picture on the same Glossy photo paper, using
> Canon and Generic ink. I could not see ANY difference.
> Even after sitting around in my office for months, I still see no
> difference.

Er, I think we are discussing scanners not printers.

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Scanner 

Bob Williams wrote:

> Ockham's Razor wrote:
>> In article
>> <Mencken-34D865.16534221072007.TakeThisOut@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Ockham's Razor <Mencken.TakeThisOut@pdx.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone had any experience with the Canon 8600 F scanner for film?
>>> It has almost un-believable resolution, USB 2 and a kajillion colors at
>>> a very reasonable price.
>>>
>>> I have a Nikon film scanner for slides and film strips so that possible
>>> need is not an issue.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>
>> Whoops, should have said for prints and pictures.
>>
> I have the 8400F, which is very similar to the 8600F; just a year or two
> older. It does a super job on photos and documents and handles slides
> better than my venerable,(circa 2000), H-P Model S20 slide scanner
> Priced right too.

I'm happy with my 8400F. I've done b+w and color prints, 30-year-old 2.25
and 35mm slides and negs and everything has worked nicely. Even using it as
a copier is good, although it certainly takes too long -- but not as long as
going down to the copying place.

Earlier I bought a Prime-mumble 35mm slide/film scanner from Costco, but the
Canon is WAYYYY better.

--
Cheers,
Bev
MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Scanner 

Ockham's Razor wrote:
> In article <gHOoi.31919$QF3.881@newsfe13.phx>,
> Bob Williams <mytbobnospam.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Gladiator wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 00:13:46 -0700, Bob Williams
>>> <mytbobnospam.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have the 8400F, which is very similar to the 8600F; just a year or two
>>>> older. It does a super job on photos and documents and handles slides
>>>> better than my venerable,(circa 2000), H-P Model S20 slide scanner
>>>> Priced right too.
>>>> Bob Williams
>>> I can't find that scanner locally but they have the Canon CanoScan
>>> Scanner (CS8600F). Is that one better or about the same?
>
> I think it is the same thing. Check the Canon web site.
>
>> One thing I like about the 8400F is that I can purchase brand new
>> Generic ink cartridges for about 1/3 the price of Canon cartridges.
>> I have printed the same picture on the same Glossy photo paper, using
>> Canon and Generic ink. I could not see ANY difference.
>> Even after sitting around in my office for months, I still see no
>> difference.
>
> Er, I think we are discussing scanners not printers.

Mea Culpa! I must have had an attack of Attention Deficit Disorder
I have the Canon 8400F SCANNER and the Canon Pixma iP3000 PRINTER
Both are excellent devices at a very good price.
As you noticed, the ink comments, of necessity, refer to the printer not
the scanner.
Bob Williams
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Scanner 

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:00:21 -0700, Bob Williams
<mytbobnospam RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote:


>One thing I like about the 8400F is that I can purchase brand new
>Generic ink cartridges for about 1/3 the price of Canon cartridges.

Ink? We are talking scanners, no?
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Scanner 

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:58:13 -0700, Bob Williams
<mytbobnospam.TakeThisOut@cox.net> wrote:


>Mea Culpa! I must have had an attack of Attention Deficit Disorder
>I have the Canon 8400F SCANNER and the Canon Pixma iP3000 PRINTER
>Both are excellent devices at a very good price.
>As you noticed, the ink comments, of necessity, refer to the printer not
>the scanner.
>Bob Williams

Hehe..you had a brain fart.
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Scanner 

On 2007-07-22 16:23:03 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> said:

> Bob Williams wrote:
>
>> Ockham's Razor wrote:
>>> In article <Mencken-34D865.16534221072007.TakeThisOut@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>>> Ockham's Razor <Mencken.TakeThisOut@pdx.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Has anyone had any experience with the Canon 8600 F scanner for film?
>>>> It has almost un-believable resolution, USB 2 and a kajillion colors at
>>>> a very reasonable price.
>>>> I have a Nikon film scanner for slides and film strips so that possible
>>>> need is not an issue.
>>>>
>>>> TIA
>>>
>>> Whoops, should have said for prints and pictures.
>>>
>> I have the 8400F, which is very similar to the 8600F; just a year or
>> two older. It does a super job on photos and documents and handles
>> slides better than my venerable,(circa 2000), H-P Model S20 slide
>> scanner
>> Priced right too.
>
> I'm happy with my 8400F. I've done b+w and color prints, 30-year-old
> 2.25 and 35mm slides and negs and everything has worked nicely. Even
> using it as a copier is good, although it certainly takes too long --
> but not as long as going down to the copying place.
>
> Earlier I bought a Prime-mumble 35mm slide/film scanner from Costco,
> but the Canon is WAYYYY better.

What's the resolution you get from a scan of a 35mm slide with this
scanner?? The canon site states 4800 x 9600 but isn't that for the
entire bed of the scanner?
--

thepixelfreak
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Scanner 

thepixelfreak wrote:
> On 2007-07-22 16:23:03 -0700, The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com>
> said:
>
>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>
>>> Ockham's Razor wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <Mencken-34D865.16534221072007 DeleteThis @sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>>>> Ockham's Razor <Mencken DeleteThis @pdx.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Has anyone had any experience with the Canon 8600 F scanner for
>>>>> film? It has almost un-believable resolution, USB 2 and a
>>>>> kajillion colors at a very reasonable price.
>>>>> I have a Nikon film scanner for slides and film strips so that
>>>>> possible need is not an issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> TIA
>>>>
>>>> Whoops, should have said for prints and pictures.
>>>>
>>> I have the 8400F, which is very similar to the 8600F; just a year or
>>> two older. It does a super job on photos and documents and handles
>>> slides better than my venerable,(circa 2000), H-P Model S20 slide
>>> scanner
>>> Priced right too.
>>
>> I'm happy with my 8400F. I've done b+w and color prints, 30-year-old
>> 2.25 and 35mm slides and negs and everything has worked nicely. Even
>> using it as a copier is good, although it certainly takes too long --
>> but not as long as going down to the copying place.
>>
>> Earlier I bought a Prime-mumble 35mm slide/film scanner from Costco,
>> but the Canon is WAYYYY better.
>
> What's the resolution you get from a scan of a 35mm slide with this
> scanner?? The canon site states 4800 x 9600 but isn't that for the
> entire bed of the scanner?

No! The 4800 x 9600 figures quoted are in DPI (dots per inch).
However, that resolution may involve a fair amount of interpolation.
I doubt that it is real OPTICAL resolution.
Even if the manufacturer claimed it,I would be wary of such a claim.
Bob Williams
 >> Stay informed about: Canon Scanner