CHEAP scanner advice

[Mercutio]

I want to find a low-cost flatbed scanner that doesn't suck. Several reasons, the first being that my office-mate needs one and can't afford it. The second is that the asstastic HP 5100s I've got at work have a Lovelace reading that's right off the scale. Seriously, the drivers I can find for these things are listed as 2000/XP ready, and I've yet to find a PC running either of the above that can boot after those drivers have been installed.

 

[Handruin]

I purchased the CanoScan D1250U2 around xmas time for $45 + free S&H from Amazon.

I bought it as a gift for Laura's parents and I think it's a good buy for the money. The software that comes with it isn't the best for managing the photos, but if you use something like Photoshop, it's great.

If you keep an eye on bensbargains.net you might find this deal again. They recently ran the deal at Amazon on 2/7/03. Unfortunately it lo0ks like the newer model is only available for $99.

 

[SteveC]

Mwave has the Epson Perfection 1260 for $72.54 before a $30.00 rebate. Epson drivers are very good, and even their low cost scanners provide more than adequate results.

a Lovelace reading that's right off the scale.

:?:

 

[mubs]

I'll second SteveC's recommendation on Epson. Velly good.

 

[Mercutio]

SteveC:
A Lovelace[/ur] (L) is the SI unit for Suckage, particularly as it relates to software.

 

[mangyDOG]

I agree with the Canon 1250U2, good quality scans, fairly fast (especially if you have USB2) and the Twain capture software works well.

Downsides are it does take a while to warm up (30 seconds+ to start scanning from cold start) and the photo editing and management software is average.

 

[SteveC]

SteveC:
A Lovelace is the SI unit for Suckage, particularly as it relates to software.

Ah. OK.

 

[Tannin]

In my usual Fhillistinish way, I have a single criterion only for scanners: how much trouble do they cause (RA's, support phone calls, requests tyhat we reinstall the drivers, "it doesn't work"s because people pressed the wrong button, everything). If I hear absolutely nothing about a scanner once I've sold it, except maybe that someone wants to buy another one, that's just the way I like it.

On this measure, the Canon range is excellent.

 

[time]

Epson drivers are very good, and even their low cost scanners provide more than adequate results.

I can't agree. Epson scanner drivers have been in decline, although I haven't checked for a few months. Not as bad as HP, of course, but then what is?

The Canon driver is not perfect, but IMHO it's far better than Epson's.

I would recommend the LiDE20. This is from someone who used to sneer at CIS scanners, viz slowness and poor quality scans. From the 670 onwards, Canon has definitely got their act together.

Granted, the scanning speed is not as fast as the 1250U2 (when connected to USB 2.0), but that's academic when you take warm-up time into account. CIS scanners start immediately - not after a minute of paralysis. The 670/LiDE20 can scan an A4 page at 600dpi in 20-30 seconds. I've actually supplied one to someone to replace an occasional-use Xerox photocopier. It takes less than 50 seconds from when you press the Copy button on the scanner to when the laser printer finishes spitting out the page, and at less cost than the photocopier.

The user and editorial opinions I've read suggest scan quality is actually better than the 1250U2. In our opinion, it beats the low-end Epsons, so this is probably true.

And of course it's a fraction of the weight and doesn't require a power cord. Just a marvellous piece of engineering.

However, I found that best results were obtained scanning at 600dpi (native is 600x1200) and reducing resolution in Photoshop etc. I haven't repeated the test with more recent versions of the driver to see if this problem has been resolved.

I'd also speculate that the upcoming LiDE50 (true USB 2.0) will be a speed demon that will cause most people to think twice before buying lower-end CCD scanners.

The downside is the lack of depth of field. A book must be really flat to get a good impression. But having lived with both, I'll never go back.

 

[Fushigi]

I would recommend the LiDE20.

What about the LiDE30? Same dimensions as the 20 but can do 1200x2400? I've been eyeing it for a while and finally BestBuy has it for $80 on sale this week -- down from its normal $100.

I may pick it up, but I've got to make sure my old Umax Astra 1200S truly doesn't work any more .. it was flaking out the last time I tried it but that was quite a while ago.

- Fushigi

 

[time]

Keep in mind that you'll really hit the wall with the extra resolution squeezing down the USB 1.1 pipe. As it is, scanning at 1200dpi on the LiDE20 doubles the time.

But why would you want to scan beyond 600dpi anyway? 200-300dpi is heaps for anything I can think of except film, and these scanners aren't designed for it. The only reason I was scanning at 600dpi was because their driver seemed to have difficulties scaling cleanly to 300dpi.

 

[Fushigi]

Keep in mind that you'll really hit the wall with the extra resolution squeezing down the USB 1.1 pipe. As it is, scanning at 1200dpi on the LiDE20 doubles the time.

But why would you want to scan beyond 600dpi anyway? 200-300dpi is heaps for anything I can think of except film, and these scanners aren't designed for it. The only reason I was scanning at 600dpi was because their driver seemed to have difficulties scaling cleanly to 300dpi.

I agree that anything beyond 600dpi is not needed for the vast majority of any scanning that I would be doing. For me, even 400dpi is generally quite sufficient and is what I typically would use on my old Astra, which I couldn't get to work.

Anyway, the LiDE 30 is USB 2 so it can d/l faster than an LiDE 20. The spec sheet is here if you care to review it.

- Fushigi

 

[time]

It's not full USB 2.0, but effectively USB 1.1. Check the web and you'll see.

Caveat Emptor.

 

[Newtun]

FWIW, OfficeMax B&M have Visioneer OneTouch 8700's for $16 after rebates. (Limited to stock on hand - no rainchecks.)

I've had good luck with my 8100 for light duty. ($5 A.R. - one of my best purchases ever).

 

[Fushigi]

It's not full USB 2.0, but effectively USB 1.1. Check the web and you'll see.

Yeah, the reviews do claim it is somewhat slow. Odd. Well, initially at least it's a moot point as I'm stuck in USB 1 land on my main machine and have no free PCI slots to add a USB 2 card anyway. USB 2 capability was more of a 'future considerations' thing.

Since my scanning requirements are somewhat minimal, the LiDE50 is not yet in stores (that I've seen), and the 50 is coming in with an est. street price nearly double the 30, I'll probably pick up the 30 over lunch today. I've a coupon for an extra 10% off so the scanner will be $72+tax.

So Merc, have you made a decision yet?

- Fushigi

 

[Mercutio]

Nope. I'm contemplating the Epson, though.

 

[mubs]

If you use Win XP, I believe the built-in Twain driver is pretty good; you may not even have to install any Epson crap. I'm not sure, though.

 

[blakerwry]

personally, i dont like the winXP built in driver.. but I'm stuck using it because i just cant seem to get the old HP drivers (designed for win95, but could work in win98/ME and after alot of hassle win2k) to work reliably in winXP...

the problems I ahve with the built in XP driver are that it has 4 profiles (Color Photo, Greyscale, Text, and Custom (last adjustment used))... you cannot specifically make new profiles or modify any of these profiles.... And the built in profiles are never what I want.. the adjust the brightness and contrast and lead to a loss of neccessary information...

Additionally, the default when using the Twain driver is always Color photo... so each time you scan you have to either adjust the Color Photo profile, select a different profile, or select the "custom" profile if whatever you last used is what you want.

Certainly there are a lot of stupidities in the built in Twain driver... the ability to make custom profiles or simply to set the default profile would make it so much easier for me.. and i consider myself a basic scanner...

The only good thing I can say about the built in Twain driver is that it simply works... works everytime without fail... very reliable.

 

[Cliptin]

the problems I ahve with the built in XP driver are that it has 4 profiles (Color Photo, Greyscale, Text, and Custom (last adjustment used))... you cannot specifically make new profiles or modify any of these profiles.... And the built in profiles are never what I want.. the adjust the brightness and contrast and lead to a loss of neccessary information...

Have you tried examining the registry to change the defaults?

 

[blakerwry]

once upon a time...

 

[e_dawg]

Once I can find the Canon LiDE 20 on sale (or a rebate), I will purchase it. I was waiting for a rebate on the N670U before it was replaced by the LiDE 20, but it never happened

You US members are fortunate to have so many discounts and rebates for everything. You can quite easily go years without buying anything at regular price.

 

[Fushigi]

I decided to hold off after all. The sale price on the LiDE30 was actually a permanent price reduction -- probably because the 50 will be coming out any day now. The extra 10% coupon comes out almost every month. And I've no immediate need to do any scanning. So I'll hold a little longer.

You US members are fortunate to have so many discounts and rebates for everything. You can quite easily go years without buying anything at regular price.

Just picked up 100 48x CD-Rs & a 56K modem for "free-after-rebate" at OfficeMax yesterday. Net cost: sales tax + 74 cents for 2 stamps.

We're lucky, yes, but realize that the rebate info is being used to generate profiles that contain a lot of personal info about us and our shopping habits. There are tradeoffs with everything.

- Fushigi

 

[Fushigi]

I decided to hold off after all. The sale price on the LiDE30 was actually a permanent price reduction -- probably because the 50 will be coming out any day now. The extra 10% coupon comes out almost every month. And I've no immediate need to do any scanning. So I'll hold a little longer.

OK, nearly 6 weeks later and the LiDE 50 still isn't out. No mention of it on the Canon web site, although it does mention a couple of other new/soon-to-be-released models. I'm beginning to wonder if it'll be released at all. I'm now considering the 2 other Canons: the 5000F and the 3000F. Both are under my ceiling of $200, are USB 2, etc.

Still, the 1250U2F is only $100 and, according to the web page, comes with Photoshop Elements, which the two more expensive models lack for some reason.

- Fushigi

 

[Will Rickards]

Happen to have $70 worth of Best Buy gift cards (whoohoo birthday money). Was in best buy considering the $100 or less scanners. Saw the Canon LIDE 30 and HP 3500C. Any thoughts?

 

[time]

I'd like to take the opportunity to correct what I said in February. It should have read:

The 670/LiDE20 can scan an A4 page at 200-300dpi in 20-30 seconds.

Sorry if I unintentionally misled anyone. I use 200dpi resolution quite a bit and became confused.

Also, despite Canon's USB 2.0 claims, I've since seen someone say that the Lide50 is still running at the same speed. Perhaps the motor needs updating?

In which case, I can't see the reason for existence of either the Lide30 or Lide50. As we discussed, the extra resolution is pointless and just slows down the scans. If they're not faster either, I'm afraid I don't get it.

 

[e_dawg]

I recently purchased the LiDE 20. Despite the numerous glowing user and editorial reviews on the net, I cannot recommend it without slight reservations. This thing has a slow mechanism (especially on the return stroke -- why can't the thing move faster when it doesn't have anything to scan?). Even if you crank down the resolution or do a preview (a preview! why does it take 20 seconds to do a preview scan?), it is still a little slow. Admittedly, I'm coming from an Epson Perfection 610 -- one of the last kick-ass scanners from Epson (1200 U, 640 U) -- which has always been one of the faster scanners available, but there is nothing particularly compelling about the LiDE scanners except for the size and the fact that it's not an HP... and it's not like we're waiting for quality here. The image quality is acceptable, but my Epson was better.

Honestly, I don't know what value scanner one should buy these days. It seems they don't make 'em like they used to. It might as well be one of the LiDE series, but unless you're a patient man, I suggest you look at scan times on whatever scanner you purchase. Having suffered through 20 second scans @ 300 dpi, I would definitely sacrifice a little quality for speed any day of the week. I just don't know what scanner would give that to you.

 

[e_dawg]

Oh, I should add that you should check the "cycle time" for the scanner if you can even find it. Taking 20 seconds to scan the image into your computer is only half of it. With scanners like the LiDE, you have to wait an equally long time for the scanner sensor to return to its starting position -- so multiply everything by 2. With scanners like the old Epsons, the return stroke takes all of 2 seconds.

 

[Piyono]

For the record I own Epson and have no (major) complaints about their softwawre.


Piyono

 

[time]

You're right about older scanners, E_dawg. I happen to know that Kodak in this country still uses quite ancient Epson scanners. They keep buying new glasses for them rather than replace them.

IMO, the Lide scanners are acceptable when compared with other scanners under about US$200. The Lide20 has no problem keeping up with the Epson 1260, and the Lide50 with the 1660.

However, the Epson 1660 and 2400 have the edge when it comes to preview speed (but not the 1260), and this is magnified when you include the relatively slow return time on the Lide units.

Preview time for the Lide20 is specced at 15 seconds, and I'd agree with that. But it takes nearly another 15 seconds to return to the starting position - more time than you need to respond to the preview.

The return delay is also a pest when you're doing multiple pages, although I just use the 15 seconds to pull the page and position the next one. But it's still a bit long.

In contrast, the Epson 1660 is rated at 5 seconds, and that's probably also about how long it takes to return to the starting position (can anyone confirm?).

I checked Canon's specifications, and the Lide50 is significantly faster than its cheaper brethren - maybe some people used it with a USB1.1 port?

Canon claims it's scan speed is 2.5 times quicker, which is about the same as the Epson 2400, or nearly twice as fast as the 1660. Preview time is down to 9 seconds, but that's still adrift from these two Epsons.

If I was doing a lot of previewing, I would prefer preview time to be two seconds and return time to be five. But I don't run a scanner all day, so I can live with it. I'd rather keep the one minute plus I save every time I want to do a scan, thanks to zero warmup.

 

[Buck]

Considering this as a thread for CHEAP scanner advice, I would also recommend the Canon LiDE20.

 

[SteveC]

In contrast, the Epson 1660 is rated at 5 seconds, and that's probably also about how long it takes to return to the starting position (can anyone confirm?).

That's probably right for the 1660. I have the 2450, and it also takes 5 seconds for the preview, and another 5 for the return.

 

[Tea]

LiDE 20 is finished now, so you have to get the LiDE 30 instead. If you want a slide-scan option, then the other Canon model above (1250 something) is finished too, as I recall, but I can't remember the new model number.

 

[Buck]

LiDE 20 is finished now, so you have to get the LiDE 30 instead. If you want a slide-scan option, then the other Canon model above (1250 something) is finished too, as I recall, but I can't remember the new model number.

Finished as in "no longer available" or finished as in "end-of-life but still plenty of product in the channel"?

 

[Tea]

No more product in my channel. But YMMV.

 

[Buck]

No more product in my channel.

Ah, they are still in the channel here. They can also be purchased directly from Canon.

 

[Fushigi]

No more product in my channel.

Ah, they are still in the channel here. They can also be purchased directly from Canon.

Saw it at Microcenter yesterday...

But I can't find the LiDE 50 anyway in the US.

- Fushigi

 

[Fushigi]

Had a 10% off coupon for BesyBuy so I picked up the Canon D5000F yesterday. I was gong to get an Epson but they don't carry them. Once I clear a flat surface I'll set it up. Not as sleek as the LiDE units but I'm hoping that with it's own power supply it'll have a faster response time (I'm taking a wild guess that the LiDE's slowness is at least partly due to power limitations).

- Fushigi

 

[e_dawg]

Hmm... the D500F looks pretty promising judging by the specs. Let us know how you like it.

 

[Will Rickards]

See this thread for circuit city's sale on epson 1260 and canon lide20.

 

[Fushigi]

Hmm... the D500F looks pretty promising judging by the specs. Let us know how you like it.

Thanks to Will for resurrecting the thread. The D5000F has been fine so far. I don't scan that many things, but my limited use of it has been painless and fast. Page previews take 7-8 or so seconds. Scans aren't slow either; a full page at 300DPI takes maybe 30ish seconds (doing from memory here).

The resulting image quality has been fine for my use. YMMV, of course, as I'm no professional when it comes to judging image quality.

It does make funny noises (moving the scan head) every now and then if left connected to the PC so I leave it plugged in but disconnected most of the time. The front USB ports on my PC are finally proving worthwhile.

Oh, between the Epson 1260 and LiDE20, I'd probably recommend the Epson as well. While I like my Canon, the LiDEs are pretty slow since they are powered by the USB cable.