Canon CS9000F MKII CanoScan 9000F MKII Photo, Film and Negative Scanner, Flatbed

I bought the CanoScan 9000 F Mark II scanner in March, 2013 for $179.00 and use it primarily to scan 35 mm and 120 mm film. So far I have scanned over 1,000 frames. I have uploaded low-resolution images to the Amazon site (11/26/13.. Amazon has deleted these images), and have provided (below) links to high-resolution scans. Rather than taking my word, or anyone else's, on the quality of this scanner, look at the images it has produced and judge for yourself. The links will take you to my photography web site. To view an image at a higher resolution, click on the "sizes" icon at the far-right bottom of the page; the "original" option is the highest resolution available.1.Cowboys [...]This and the five photos that follow were shot on 120 mm Fuji Velvia (transparency) film in October 1980.2.Moth [...]This and the seven photos that follow were shot on 35 mm Kodak Ektachrome (transparency) film in 1977.3.Key West [...]35 mm Kodak Ektacolor (negative) film shot in 1974.4.Santa Barbara [...]120 mm Kodak Vericolor Professional (negative) film shot in 1988.5.Biscayne Bay [...]35mm Kodak Kodacolor II (negative) film shot in 1972.For the money, I don't think you could buy a better scanner; however, the software, could be better.The Canoscan offers three programs for scanning film: Auto Scan, Custom Scan and Scan Gear. It also comes with another program, Image Garden, for cataloging and filing images. I am currently using Adobe Lightroom to do this and do not care to switch.To run Auto Scan you simply push the auto button on the scanner. The scanner detects whether you are scanning film, photos or documents, automatically selects the resolution and file format and sends files of each image to your computer. In regard to film, the Auto Scan will scan only 35 mm film in the JPEG format at 1200 dpi. If you want a TIFF format and / or a higher resolution, you must activate the Custom Scan or Scan Gear from your computer. The auto and custom scan programs will scan only 35 mm film while the Scan Gear program scans 35 mm and 120 mm formats and lets you make corrections on a low-resolution preview. I generally use Scan Gear for all my film scans because I can select which frames to scan from the preview; the other programs scan every frame.For the most part, the programs work OK, but are far from perfect. Each program requires you to designate a folder on your computer that will store the scanned images. If you create different folders for each program you will get triplicate files of the same images no matter which program you use.While the scanner's uncorrected output is pretty good, a serious photographer would probably want to make post-scan adjustments using more specialized software such as Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop. The Scan Gear program can make useful adjustments, such as flip or rotate, but does a terrible job on the finer adjustments such as color balance, exposure and contrast.The scanner's ability to output "TIFF" files rather than just "JPEG" is a real advantage. The TIFF format is uncompressed meaning that it captures more information than JPEG and thereby allows a wider range of corrections (assuming you have the software that can make the corrections). Unfortunately, the TIFF files are about four times the size as JPEG.When I first tried to scan a full-frame of 120 mm film at 9600 DPI (the highest) resolution, I got an error message: "Scanner cannot be performed unless the crop size or output resolution is reduced to 10208 x 4032 pixels or less." This message also appears, but less frequently, when scanning 35 mm film at full-frame. By trial and error, I found that I cannot scan a full-fame of 120 mm film at more than 2400 dpi. I also discovered that if I use a crop tool to reduce the size of the scan area, I can avoid the error message and scan at 9600 dpi. This scan, however, creates a very large file of more than 500 MB. The manual does not explain what this confusing message means. It appears to say that you must reduce resolution in terms of pixels but the scanner settings are expressed in dpi's. (Pixels and dpi's are not equivalent terms). I thought that I might have an outdated driver, but the Canon web site offers only one driver: "9000F MarkII MP Drivers Ver. 1.00" while the scanner came with driver 19.0.2. It is not clear which is the more current, so I am still using the driver that came with the scanner.Despite the software quirks, I am giving this scanner five stars because it is reasonably-priced and produces scans that are comparable to drum scans.4/12/14 update: Today I noticed that Amazon has deleted my links to high-resolution scans that I could not post on their web site. I have written to Amazon asking whether they now forbid reviews to include links to external, non-commercial web sites.

It looks like there are a lot of people who've really dove into the technical aspects of this scanner, and compared it with other similar scanners. Honestly, that's really beyond my ability. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do a side-by-side comparison. I simply wanted a high-quality flat-bed scanner to scan a large number of family photos-- most of which have some fading or color correction needed.Many people have commented on the difference between their scans with this scanner, another scanner, or the colors of their originals. I think any scanner you buy and use is going to have subjective color differences. All can be corrected with the right software. So all I really care about is sharpness / lack of blur and speed of scanning. Those are the highest priorities for me. I'm happy with the quality of the Canon 9000F because the scans seem sharp, and the scanning is surprisingly fast-- even for large photos.I didn't think I needed a negative scanner with adapter, but man did it blow my mind. It turns out my mother left a lot of the negatives in the store photo folders, and they were less effected by time and the elements. I scanned them and was amazed with what the Canon could do with them. They look like photos taken yesterday (instead of 40-50 years ago). If you're luck-enough to have negatives or slides, scan 'em!I'm knocking one star off the review because Canon software is bloated and intrusive (as usual). However, I found it fairly easy to get it dialed-in so that I only needed to click one button and the scanner did the rest (fast, excellent auto cropping, and put the files in the directory I wanted). I'd recommend you look at aftermarket software to do color corrections (something like Adobe Photoshop Elements or Lightroom).If there's one thing I can say base on experience: It's more important that you get scanning right away than you wait for the perfect time and the perfect scanner. Memories fade over time, photos can be lost or damaged, and I'm glad I got this and just dove into scanning. My recommendation is that-- if you're interested in preserving your family history-- get scanning and don't overthink it. I wished I'd started this project ten years ago.Cheers, and here's to your family!