Epson Perfection 1200U PHOTO

This is an excellent scanner, especially considering the price. Scanning 6x7 film is very fast and very accurate, the results are excellent for web use and good enough for small prints (up to 8x10). Colors are good, sharpness is excellent.

The TWAIN software is not the greatest in the world but more than adequate to produce an image that is "almost there." The tweaking can be done in PhotoShop. The Silverfast software for this scanner is $200, almost the price of the scanner itself. In this case, it's not really worth the price.

Shop for price, Amazon had this for $235 while B&H and Adorama were both selling it for $309, actually MORE than the $300 list price!

This scanner was purchased to produce scans of 6x7 transparencies for posting on a web site. For this use, it is excellent. The scans are fast, at least compared to my under $100 Agfa. The USB install was fast and flawless. The TWAIN software works even if it is not the best available but Silverfast has a version that works with this scanner if you need it. Scans aree sharp and clear, colors are excellent.

The film holders are a bit flimsy but easy to use.

CanoScan 2710 for 35mm. Agfa 1212U flatbed for simple reflective scanning.

N/A

This is a great scanner for the price paid. It is better with 2 1/4 or 4x5 (75% of my use). Not a drum scan but, as mentioned before, usable for professional aplications

Excelent scans using user defined settings (the auto settings seem to come out looking less than optimum ie blury). Have used to submit work to stock agencies and ad companies without fail (file sizes average 60 megs)

Negative/slide frames seem flimsy but have held up to constant, careful, use.

Dimage, Umax, various drum scanners

Answered my concern with a USB problem withn a day (24 hrs)

For the money, I am very impressed with the quality of the scans I have made from 120 and 4x5 transparencies. In terms of color saturation and overall accuracy, I think this inexpensive flatbed bests my Minolta Dimage Scan Dual film scanner. Of course the resolution isn't high enough to compete with the Minolta for 35mm work. The way I look at it, this flatbed is perfect for making excellent proofs from 120 or 4x5. Actually, most people would be very satisfied by good inkjet prints from these scans. Does it get all the detail out of the original? No way. Is it comparable to a drum scan? Not even close. Is it a true 1200 dpi scanner? I have no idea. But the gap in quality between this scanner and a $1,200 scanner is (to me) not substantial enough to warrant the extra cost. A prize-winning photo deserves a drum scan anyway.

Note that I haven't scanned any reflective material or negatives, so I can't opine on the quality for those materials.

Easy to set up, nice preview, accurate colors, nice transparency scans!

not high enough resolution for 35mm, unusual driver (no histogram), film carriers (esp. 4x5) are a little flimsy

Minolta Dimage Scan Dual
Cheapo Artec Flatbed

not used

As a sharp 600dpi scanner it would be a good value for the money as a print scanner if it
scanned to the edges of the glass. As it is, it is recommended only if you can live with not
scanning the edges or risking unsquare orientation by positioning it off of the edge.
The photo aspect is pretty dubious because with a maximum "sharp" scanning res of
600dpi as a film scanner it is pretty lousy.

Optically the 1200U is a good 600dpi scanner. However a 1200/2400 dpi
scanner it ain't.

1200/2400 res. are garbage i.e. they may have more information than 600 dpi but also produce
soft-focus results.
Not being able to scan to the edge of the
glass is a ridiculous screw-up.
NOT a good scanner for medium format
unless 4x6 is your target size.

None

Extremely poor resolution, especially transparencies. One of the worst scanners in terms of resolution I've used in my 8 years graphics experience.

None

Blurry scans.
Compressed shadow areas.
Low actual dynamic range especially in shadows.

Umax Astra 1220 reflective