Forum Moderators: open
But I was told that store doesnt stock stand alone scanners, only those multi task jobs that print, fax and copy, too. Next I'm going to find out that I can't buy 8" floppies.
A few scanners are still available online.
Should I buy a multifunction unit (they are amazingly cheap) or would you recommend a dedicated scanner for light use? Most of my scanning is for the web or print design and an occasional photocopy.
Where I worked previously we bought a few scanners because we needed quality, high capacity scanners. These all-in-one units I think usually only do maybe 5-20 pages in the feeder so be aware of your needs when shopping. I'm happy with mine though.
however i've also got a stand alone canoscan 8800F which i bough last year to replace my old epson scanner that had become a bit noisy.
imo it is considerably better than the all in one scanner/printer that i have (which i also bought last year) ... it is fast and fantastic quality ...
also it can scan direct to a pdf file (which i never ever knew until i needed to do it once!), it also acts as a copier if you have a seperate printer.
i use it a fair bit but if you have space for both and the extra money isn't a big deal then i'd get seperates, otherwise the all in one is adequate but not top notch - high res scans not as good, etc.
Then buy a scanner.
if one thing breaks you have...
-----------
Anyway, yesterday I may have become about the last person in the world to buy a standalone home scanner. a Canon Lide200 model from Newegg (took one day to get it!) at a cost of $89.
Talk about waste! My big old HP unit still worked great. Moreover, now I have to spend a ton of time learning to use the fairly complex and quite different software on the new Canon. All to make a scan/photocopy or two a month!
---
BTW, cool thing about my new scanner: it gets all its power via the USB connection.
Grinned all the way to the office. Cheered when it fired right up and made great scans (with software downloaded from mfg. website)... ;)
[edited by: T_Miller at 6:57 pm (utc) on April 11, 2009]
Moreover, now I have to spend a ton of time learning to use the fairly complex and quite different software on the new Canon. All to make a scan/photocopy or two a month!
All you need is a TWAIN driver. Apps that are TWAIN compliant will access the scanner directly. No "new" software required. ie, scan directly to Photoshop.
Yeah! Really.
Of course, for any generic website scanning, a cheapo will do.
My original HP Scanjet scanner (from the Win 3.1 days) became incompatible when I upgraded to Windows 95. Its resolution could not be matched by the one on a subsequent OfficeJet on which I scanned a lot of home photos. Now I wish I had invested in a dedicated scanner to better digitise those photos.
It wasn't your scanner that was incompatible!
It was either the SCSI card, the drivers or the software the scanner utilized.
I've some TIF files that were scanned in 1996 and looked bad as a result of the scanner software. When I viewed and/or edited the images with a more effective software in 2003 there was no difference in quality (i. e., DPI, PPI) only the image was viewed in better graphic quality.
The basic scanner hardware (at least low to mid-range cost) has not changed since the mid-90's as a result of lack of demand.
I've read many times that CCD scanners are less than desirable, however never having anything except CCD scanners, I'm unable to to distinguish any significant gain (at least as conveyed by others).
My current scanner (Canon D1250) was a $50 purchase in 2003. For nearly six years it has been and continues to be a work horse. Perhaps I'm just luck.
I'm aware of many, many people who either purchased and/or were provided with stand-alone scanners in the past as part of computer package, simply leaving their scanner unused, because they were either not motivated or unable to get beyond the learning curve of scanner requirements.
With perhaps 150,000 or more scans, I'm perhaps more experienced than a novice, however not exactly a professional.
