Scanning results reality…Canoscan 9000F MK2 vs Regular Labs

canoscan 4800 dpi
canoscan 4800 dpi
regular lab scan
regular lab scan

After reading many reviews on how good the canoscan 9000F MK2 is, i got a used copy.
Unfortunately i have to state the obvious finding here, even with VueScan 9.4.41, no matter what settings i do, with or without the holder, the results are definitely inferior to a regular lab scan which is using lower DPI but dedicated film scanning optics.

Hence the scanner will now just be used to scan my existing negatives from days of old and not for my current projects and new albums.
So, if you are planning to do your own scanning, just forget these Canon’s inferior products, save your money and time and let the lab do it for you, they usually have a fast turn around time of 1-2 days max.

4 thoughts on “Scanning results reality…Canoscan 9000F MK2 vs Regular Labs

  1. Yup. Not that a flatbed scanner is a bad machine if you find one for $100 or so, but I wouldn’t use one for anything beyond thumbnails on the internet, especially for 35mm. The resolution specs are always overrated, and the color correction isn’t anywhere close to what Kodak, Fuji, and Noritsu have. The dedicated film scanners (like from Nikon and Minolta) gave good results, but they aren’t made anymore and cost too much used. Plus, scanning your own film can suck a whole lot of your time away…


      1. I have a Pakon F335, a 10-year old minilab scanner made by Kodak. Only scans 35mm but it’s blisteringly fast and the color algorithms are fantastic. They’ve got somewhat of a cult following in the last few years and the prices have gone up quite a bit, but a few years ago they’d go for $275 and was probably the best deal for a film scanner at the time. I don’t know if I’d recommend one now, but it depends on the photographer I suppose: how much film one shoots, whether you’re already scanning your own film and looking to save time, how happy you are already with photo lab scans. I dabbled with the Epson V600 for a while and was less than impressed, also have a Minolta F2400 which never gets use now. If you look on my site, everything from the past year (that’s 35mm) was scanned on the Pakon. It has its downsides, like a maximum resolution of 3000×2000, but for what it does, it does extremely well.


your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s