Recommend a Scanner

sean@oregonsound.com wrote on 5/23/2008, 5:52 PM

Hey all. Our old IBM scanner is on its deathbed, so we're looking for recommendations for a decent scanner. I haven't been following this technology, so I'm open to any suggestions. We do a fair amount of photo scanning for reunion DVD's, etc., so we need something decent but without breaking the bank. Is dedicated the only way to go, or are any of the combo units decent enough? We have mid-level inkjet and mono lazer printers, so upgrading either of those areas wouldn't be a bad thing. Any help appreciated.

Comments

blink3times wrote on 5/23/2008, 7:21 PM

I find that they're all pretty decent now in terms of quality. I bought a HP C5280 scanner/printer mainly for the disk printing ability. But I found that the built in scanner was of good enough quality so that I could put my dedicated Canon scanner into the closet.

I think at this point the dedicated ones give more options rather than better quality. My Canon for example had a film scanner attachment. (which I needed for one project). So if you're not looking for something special like that then I wouldn't get too tied up in knots over quality. You can't really use a million and one dots per inch in a video anyway.

richard-courtney wrote on 5/23/2008, 7:30 PM

We have a HP flatbed scanner stand alone. I don't like the combo units.
Most units have the slide film holders these days.

HP also worked in our conversion in the office from Windows to Linux programs
open office and gimp.

Seth wrote on 5/23/2008, 8:28 PM

+1
"HP also worked in our conversion in the office from Windows to Linux"

HP is easily the most inter-compatible manufacturer of scanners, printers and cameras. So you'll be able to tote your scanner along to your friend's house (you know, the Linux/Unix/Mac/BeOS user?) and still be able to grab perfect scans.

Laurence wrote on 5/23/2008, 8:35 PM

I just got a Canon LiDE 90 and I really like it. It is extremely small, is very fast over USB2, is powered by the USB connection, has 64bit drivers, is only about $75 dollars US, and hides away in a laptop case when not in use.

UlfLaursen wrote on 5/23/2008, 9:22 PM

I got the same as you Laurence, and I like it a lot too. You have several buttons on the front to scan directly to print, pdf etc. and I like that a lot.

/Ulf

sean@oregonsound.com wrote on 5/24/2008, 9:37 AM

Thanks, all, I'll check into these options. The highest rated standalone scanners are all in the $400 and up range, which isn't practical for what we need. I'll probably go with the combo unit that has the best layout conducive to scanning books (if such a beast exists).

LReavis wrote on 5/24/2008, 10:40 AM

I spent a lot of time reading reviews of scanners about 18 months ago, looking for a scanner that would do a good job on slides (all produce good scans of photo prints, but scanning slides from a good single-lens reflex camera for use in HD requires a bit more quality than many scanners can produce). I decided on a Canon 9950F.

A couple of weeks ago, I decided to buy a scanner for my daughter and learned that the Canon 8800F produces scans that are almost as good, and the scanner is about half the price of the 9950F. But the improvement that sold me is the fact that the 8800F uses LED lighting instead of flourescents, which means no warm-up time. At present, it seems that only one other scanner uses LEDs and its scans are reported to be inferior (an it costs more). Using the 8800F is a treat, for it starts scanning almost immediately. The 30-second warm-up time that mine requires might not seem like a big deal, but it definitely inhibits my using the scanner as much as I would if it were as fast as the 8800F.

Tollkuhnator wrote on 5/24/2008, 12:43 PM

Ditto on the Canon 8800F. This is an excellent scanner that also handles negative and positive film to 2-1/4" and mounted 35mm slides.

JJKizak wrote on 5/24/2008, 1:42 PM

What software does the Canon use?
JJK