Need a scanner: but how good does it have to be?

[swanky]

I've tried searching the web for this one, but it seems to be a long shot. I recently bought a Leica Minilux (which I love), and I would like to put some of the photos on my web site. So - I need a scanner. I would also like to scan some old family photos, purely for backup purposes.

I will not need "perfect" images, web use is the biggest priority. I've seen what a dedicated film scanner can do, but I really can't justify spending $400+ for anything decent.

Two Canon scanners have caught my eye: the Canon Lide 35 (1200x2400 dpi) and the Lide 500F (2400x4800dpi), both run off the USB port and are highly portable which would be a huge bonus (I can take it with me when I visit family and do the scanning). But I keep reading "Do not waste your time scanning prints!" and "Flatbed sucks!".

My questions are;

1) Would any of the Canon scanners be "good enough" for my usage?
2) The 500F comes with a dinky little film adapter for singe slide/negative scanning. Is this totally pointless?
3) Do you have samples of what kind of quality I can expect (online galleries, etc.)?

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

 

[BlueWeasel]

For general usage, I think the Canon scanners would be fine. I have one of the older Canon scanners (LiDE20 or 40 I think) and it works great for basic projects. It runs off the USB port as well, and that was the selling point for me.

 

[swanky]

Thank you! It's nice to know that someone out there is happy with their flatbed scanner. I find myself reading these tests where they put a flatbed up against a film scanner, and even I can see the difference.

 

[beverage]

office depot's currenlty are getting rid of the HP 4600 scanner, decent quality, and used to be priced over $100. If you can find a store near you that still has some, they're selling for 39.99

 

[nsafreak]

I'm a big fan of Epson scanners. I have an Epson Perfection 1670 that does a great job scanning prints. Granted it's not very portable since it requires its own power supply & while not huge isn't as slim as the LiDe scanners. If you want I can put up a few pictures I took with my Minolta on FujiFilm Provia slide film for an idea on the quality of the pictures.

 

[imported_rod]

I did photography for a while, and when working at high quality, a film scanner will beat the pants off a flatbed. I mean, I've used a film scanner that can do over 30 Mega Pixels off a single negative. Problems with that are that it gives you a file size of about half a gigabyte, runs off a SCSI connection (I thought they were just for HDDs...dont ask me) and cost more than a brand new computer.

For general use, especially when posting photos on the net, you'll be hard pressed to notice any difference between a film scanner and flatbed. I have an original Canon LIDE that I won in 2000, and it scans photos great. It is enough for all my personal uses. 600dpi is it's max resolution, but if the photos are going on the web, you dont really want anything much above 150dpi. And Im sure that now, 5 years later, the scanners are even better.

Hope that's helped.
RoD

 

[Ken90630]

Originally posted by: rod
For general use, especially when posting photos on the net, you'll be hard pressed to notice any difference between a film scanner and flatbed. I have an original Canon LIDE that I won in 2000, and it scans photos great. It is enough for all my personal uses. 600dpi is it's max resolution, but if the photos are going on the web, you dont really want anything much above 150dpi.

What he said. :thumbsup:

I might add that while I don't own a scanner yet, I looked at some awhile back. I kinda liked the lids on some of the Canon flatbed scanners better than the HP scanners because they had metal hinges on them that felt a bit more solid than HP's plastic-only ones. But it was a minor difference -- no big deal.

I also read some things at that time (this was about a year ago) about some new HP scanners having problems with Windows XP. Drivers, presumably? That's prolly been worked out by now, but if you get an old model HP that's been sitting around awhile, you could potentially have probs with XP. Although, again, there'd prolly be a driver update available by now on HP's site or via Windows Update (or SP2?).

All else being equal, you also might wanna try to find a scanner that uses USB 2.0 rather than just plain 'ol USB (1.1). Transfer speed from the scanner to your computer will obviously be faster via USB 2.0 (although the actual document scanning speed wouldn't be any different).

 

[Zepper]

I have an Epson 1260 Photo and it does a fine job - got it NIB for under $50. shipped on eBay. Epson scanners almost always are among the top in the comparison reviews. Epson often has refurbs in their on-line store for great prices and you get the full warranty and all original accys. I think the 2580 or something like is a very good current model for under $100.
. Some of the LIDE models are USB powered so that saves an extra wall wart. The trade-off is that it may be a bit slower.
.bh.

 

[swanky]

Thank you for all your replies, gave me the assurance I needed!

 

[oogabooga]

i have a canon lide 30 (or 20, i think 30, but that model line).

i love my scanner, dont have the most opportunities to use it, but when i need it, i love having it.

my gripes?
1) Scanner is USB powered : it doesnt scan very quickly since the motor can only go so fast with the power it gets i guess. A regular 'preview scan' can take up to 25 seconds.
2) Scanner is usb 1.1

otherwise i love the scanner but i woe the day my parents mail me their old pics and want backups.

 

[nweaver]

look on Ebay or somewhere for a cheap HP S20. It does 4x6 photos, negatives (2400 optical DPI) and slides. It's got a small footprint is has excellent results. It's a few years old, I got mine off ebay new for $60

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

I've got a Epson 4180 scanner, and it's great. Beautiful scans from photos, but I haven't had too much luck with negatives, but I'm thinking they were messed up, or I haven't figured out the right res to scan them at... And the thing is damn fast.
Tas.

 

[randomlinh]

any other recommendations for flatbeds for scanning in old photos? I would probably want to reprint them.. but 95% are 4x6 or smaller... and maxing out at 5x7 really. I want quality.. but the photo's are so old anyway.. and it is mostly for memory's sake anyhow.

Is there anything under $150 that would work? I have a canon canoscan 300ex now, it's alright, but maybe a touch better would be nice (need another scanner anyway).

 

[imported_rod]

A newer canon might be the way to go. The LIDE ones are fairly good. My old one is still great.
Just take some note of the resolution.

RoD

 

[swanky]

I bought a Lide 35 which was perfect for my use. Thank you for all the input!