Didn't use the Canon. Used the Kodak. Stay away from it!!!!
The scanner is not good. First of all, there is no way to get 10 bits per
second as the scanner claims it it. It always comes out 8bits/channel. That
is not good. Also, the histogram looks terrible after you get the image.
There are presets for few filkms, and they are pretty much all Kodak films.
In addition, Vuescan does not support it.
When you insert a strip, it takes couple minutes for the software to finish
calibrating per strip. Then you have to do an autofocus. THis scanner has
major autofocus problems. The only positive thing about is that you can
scan a whole roll, but scanning strips is a pain. IN addition, even if you
scan a roll, the color balance is usually really bad so you spend a lot of
time correcting each image.
YOu usually get soft images, because of the focus problem. When you ask it
to prescan a whole strip, it asks you if you want to autofocus. You say
yes. Then it scans the first frame and stops. So you have to go back and
tell it to prescan the whole frame again. Idiotic programming.
Somebody wrote in his review - "We ended up with the feeling that each time
if we got the best possible scan"
YOu spend hours everytime because you are not sure if what you got is the
best possible. It also amplifies every little imperfection (dust scratch)
on the negative.
I sold it on ebay and got SprintScan 4000. Much better, much faster. It
took me 5 minutes per frame with the Kodak.
Get either the SS4000 or the Canon. SS4000 does not amplify the dust as
much as other scanners anyway.
After 30 years of chemical photography, I am begininng with processing.
Here in Buenos Aires, we can by Nikon (very expensive), Canon and Kodak film
scanners (at aprox, 1000 u$s).
Canon looks very friendly, while Kodak was hard to set up for a Kodak
technician in a recent Show.
Canon has FARE technology but Kodak claims that a complete 36 roll of 35 mm
can be scanned unatended.
I will appreciate any comments before a buying decission.