Is the quality really 20 MP? I can't find any other scanners that claim to have that high a quality so it made me curious about this one.
1851458
The pictures look pretty good but I can tell you that if file size means anything then I wonder also if it is really 20mp. My 8mp camera files sizes are around 3000 to 4000mb but the wolverine file sizes are only about 2500mb to 2800mb.
1851459
I found that the quality of the pictures was as good or better than the slides I was converting. A very good product.
1851460
I don't know if it's 20MP because I really don't know what that means. The slides I scanned did not show any pixilation or other problems that weren't already inherent in the photo. A lot of the slides I scanned were over 50 years old and it did a great job with them.
1851461
I am not positive but I can say I was not wholly pleased with the resolution. E-mail me direct for quicker answers. indianagil@aol.com
1851462
I am not sure about the size;however, I will tell you the pictures were good quality, and the device was really easy to use. I would highly recommend it.
678421
I'm in the same boat. Been researching all morning and have narrowed down to the same 2. Best review I've found is on pcmag... with bottomline given as "If you need a scanner that scans both film and prints, but you are more concerned with the prints, the 8800F is an ideal choice. If your needs are more film-based than print-based, look at the V500 for excellent film scanning."
967190
Just for kicks and grins I scanned negatives and slides at the maximum resolution and I estimate the process took about 10-15 per. I also found out that scanning at the highest resolution created files so large (some as big as 600MB) that even though I have a fairly high performance PC, (Core i7, 12GB of RAM), the files were so big I couldn't open them. I dropped down to around 2400-4800 DPI and found the files created about 1.2MB or so. I also scanned files on my MBP with 4GB of RAM and it also created files too large to open and in a few cases it even crashed. I decided the 4800 DPI range was more than sufficient for scanning for my purposes which is to burn all these treasured slides and negatives to disk and give them to family so they can enjoy them too. If you are a professional photographer or designer and you need the max resolution you will need a box with the highest performing hardware you can buy and that will be commensurate with the price. Bottom line: Test various resolutions and see what works for your purposes. I read MANY of the reviews of this scanner before I bought it and decided it would work perform the job I needed it to do and it has performed admirably.
196334
Yes! I have been happy with this scanner. Has a reasonable price tag. Good luck!
683891
This seems to be a full-blown scanner. Per the Canon website and user's manual it can scan the usual documents (up to 8.5 x 11) as well as pictures as well as 35mm negs and slides as well as medium format film. It can output in JPEG, TIFF, PDF, and others. I'm ordering one today! To download the manual see http://alpha03u.c-wss.com/inc/ApplServlet?SV=WWUCA900
2226789
I use it for fine art scanning. It works great. But you have to open the scanning toolbox and set the scanning PPI to 600. Then you get a really, really good quality scan.
1193375
I've had no problems with poor quality scanned photos. The default is set to 300dpi, have you tried increasing it to 600dpi? That's what I always use and that works for me. I believe the max is 1200dpi. You may want to play around with that setting and see. Also don't be fooled by the scan preview, it's not an exact representation of what the scanned photo/doc will look. Hope that helps.
1606032
I never had the original, but the image quality is very very close to that of my 5DmkIII's. I have only used it in raw, not jpg, but I am blown away with the quality both at the base and at higher ISO's
1442807
I'm more concerned with the image quality issue. They're getting 12 MP onto a really tiny sensor. The pixel density is 43 MP per square CM. That's really pushing it. Serious cameras (like DSLRs) tend to be under 5, sometimes even under 2. They use way bigger sensors, up to the size of a 35 mm picture, for a similar or not-much-higher pixel count. On paper this camera is exactly what I need, but I'm going to wait for some reviews before I put my money down for one. (Shouldn't have to wait too long, fortunately.)
2226787
No. The scans are low-quality. It doesn't even do a decent job with print. The color is not accurate in scanning or in printing. Go with a different model.
2023303
I did all of my scans as jpegs so they were very accurate. If you wanted something that you could edit, I really don't know the answer. One thing to consider... I used the scanner holder that kept it steady while scanning. This made a big difference. Scanning without the holder, everything was out of proportion and not worth doing.
1969253
I used a HP scanner before and was not happy. This scanner works very quickly. The quality of the scans are excellent. I hope this helps. I just finished scanning over 30 yrs. worth of pictures.
1193376
I have had only good scans from photos. As you probably know you have to have glossy finish photos. Matte finish will give you lots of white and black specks due to the texture of the paper. That applies to any scanner. And of course set your dpi to 300 or greater if you want excellent quality. Epson has an excellent image color and brightness/contrast editing option as well.
1674903
I have been more than pleased with the image quality of the LF1. I have not seen the images you are evaluating. Check out Gordon Liam & Camera Labs for his review and serious sample photos.
1028585
I am interested in what yoiu decide. I am looking at the same two scanners, primarily to scan family slides. The reviews for the Canon seem more consistently favorable. Those for Epson seem to reflect either love or hate.
831435
I have scanned several photos and they come out very well. I think the max resolution is 600DPI which is probably about as good as the quality of the photograph itself. The larger the photo the clearer the scan will be. I found the saving the pictures as a .pdf seem to give you a little better quality than a .jpg and also works well if you are using a MAC.
1046458
The scanning quality is good, depending on your setting. Scanning for "professional printing" is a little vague because you didn't mention size or the type of artwork. I have not been unhappy with any of the functions.