Store Locator
Track Order
Close X

New Customer ? Start Here.

SEARCH
MAKE more HAPPEN
MAKE more HAPPEN
 

New day. New Daily Deals. Get them before they are gone!

WEEKLY AD
Canon Canoscan 9000F Mark II - Flatbed Scanner - 6218B002

Canon Canoscan 9000F Mark II - Flatbed Scanner - 6218B002

Item: IM1QV9268    Model: 6218B002

Canon Canoscan 9000F Mark II - Flatbed Scanner - 6218B002
4.0stars
( 10 reviews)
SHARE:
  • Interface Type: USB 2.0
  • Scan Element Type: CCD
  • Light Source: White LED
See more details
  • FREE SHIPPING, Plus up to 5% back for Rewards Members
  • Special Financing Available  Learn More
  • In Stock Online
  • Expected Delivery:3 - 5 Business Days
  • FREE Shipping to store ( Learn More )
  • Online Only
Interface Type: USB 2.0Scan Element Type: CCDLight Source: White LEDEachCanon 6218B002 CanoScan 9000F Mark II Flatbed Scanner, 9600 dpiInterface Type: USB 2.0Scan Element Type: CCDLight Source: White LEDCanon Canoscan 9000F Mark II - Flatbed Scanner - 6218B002186.19USDhttp://www.staples-3p.com/s7/is/image/Staples/m001384461_sc7?$std$http://www.staples-3p.com/s7/is/image/Staples/m001384461_sc7?$thb$http://www.staples-3p.com/s7/is/image/Staples/m001384461http://www.staples-3p.com/s7/is/image/Staples/m001384462_sc7?$std$http://www.staples-3p.com/s7/is/image/Staples/m001384462_sc7?$thb$http://www.staples-3p.com/s7/is/image/Staples/m001384462/Canon-6218B002-CanoScan-9000F-Mark-II-Flatbed-Scanner-9600-dpi/product_IM1QV9268
Price:
$186.19
Each

Currently Out of Stock.

Add to Favorites

Live Customer Support
M-F 8A-8P EST
*Pop ups must be allowed to use chat

REVIEW SNAPSHOT®

by PowerReviews
Canon 6218B002 CanoScan 9000F Mark II Flatbed Scanner, 9600 dpi
 
4.1

(based on 10 reviews)

Ratings Distribution

  • 5 Stars

     

    (5)

  • 4 Stars

     

    (2)

  • 3 Stars

     

    (2)

  • 2 Stars

     

    (1)

  • 1 Stars

     

    (0)

80%

of respondents would recommend this to a friend.

Pros

  • Great resolution (6)
  • Easy to use (5)
  • Fast connectivity (5)
  • High-speed scanning (4)

Cons

    Best Uses

      Most Helpful Positive Review

       

      Canon 9000F Mark II Scanner

      As any real photographer knows when it comes to equipment, the proof is in the photograph. That being said, the following is a photographer oriented review in that image quality is valued first...Read complete review

      As any real photographer knows when it comes to equipment, the proof is in the photograph. That being said, the following is a photographer oriented review in that image quality is valued first and foremost. I picked up my 9000 F Mark II two days ago and since then I have run a number of real-world tests on it. Unfortunately, I could not compare it to the original 9000 F since I don't have one available, however, my 9000 F Mark II seems to perform better based on the early reviews of the original 9000 F. I'll speak to that momentarily, but keep in mind that I cannot really account for the validity of anyone else's results. So in fact, there may be indeed be no difference in image quality between recent manufacturers of the two models. This is a summary of what I did found on the Mark II: Regarding Platen use with flat documents and photographs, I found the scanner to be very fast, and it produced excellent quality in terms of color accuracy and neutrality. In fact, after profiling it with two different IT8 targets using third-party software I found that all this resulted in was a loss of color neutrality and an exaggeration of contrast, which I really didn't care for on either count. In reality, the Canon ScanGear software produced the best results and was much easier to work with. At 300 dpi with 48 bit color it averaged around 9 seconds for an A4 size document and it produced a 51 MB Tiff file, which I found to be more than adequate for PDFs that were much better than than my MX870 or Lide600F. At 600 dpi it took 26 seconds to produce a 48 bit 102 MB Tiff file that would be better for larger reproductions. At 1200 dpi it took 1 min. and 44 seconds to produce a 409 MB 48 bit Tiff file that was, very critically speaking, sharper than the 600 dpi scan, however, you have to uncheck the thumbnail view in ScanGear to do this and you would never be able to tell the difference on an 8 x 10 anyway. So I'm going with 600 dpi as a standard for photographs, because frankly there's no good reason for more especially when you just start to see ink jet patterns and minute dust, aside from simple fact that a 102 MB file doesn't take a supercomputer linked to server farms for storage, unlike the 409 MB 1200 dpi files when things begin to add up. Film Scanning After a number of tests I found that 2400 dpi resulted in the sharpest scans, which may not seem to make sense at first but it was true nevertheless. Even with FARE Medium enabled it only took an average of 1 min. and 30 seconds on Kodachrome to produce a 40 MB 48 bit Tiff file. Increasing the resolution to 4800 dpi or 9600 dpi was a real loser on three fronts. First the sharpness got progressively worse at these "higher dpi settings", the times increased dramatically, as well as the file sizes, which reached an absurd 625 MB 48 bit Tiff, again with fare enabled. So 2400 dpi with FARE enabled (which did not effect the sharpness) was the winner! While again I couldn't compare the film performance with the 9000 F original I was able to compare it to my older dedicated film scanner the CanoScan FS4000US, which could only be used with third-party software and produced considerably more noise. In terms of resolution though the dedicated film scanner was better, although it wasn't very noticeable on 4 x 6 prints and took a good deal of advanced Photoshop techniques to fully utilize. So for smaller print reproductions, speed (1 min. 30 seconds compared to 8 min. 30 seconds on the old film scanner) and the color quality of the color negative scans I'll definitely use my 9000 F Mark II for archiving and cataloging and when I have one of those well-crafted images that I want to print large I'll simply rescan on the film scanner, which by the way is not supported on the newer operating systems unless you purchase third-party software that includes its own drivers. In conclusion, I am really happy with the scanner at least partially because I didn't expect magical results on critically high quality film images. As I mentioned earlier, even though I could not compare it to the original 9000 F I did not find any problems whatsoever in terms of overall image quality and ease-of-use based on my real-world tests, in fact I found that the new ScanGear produced excellent color overall and particularly with regard to color negatives. This differs from what some earlier reviews of the original 9000 F claimed to be issues. Even for film scans I found that the quality was really not an issue unless you're going 8 x 10 or larger with a really good original. Hope this helps.

      VS

      Most Helpful Negative Review

       

      Should also have hoders to scan 126 negatives and

      There was a lot of 126 and 110 film sold in the past that I would like to scan. I like the resolution of this scanner but I can't scan my files of 126...Read complete review

      There was a lot of 126 and 110 film sold in the past that I would like to scan. I like the resolution of this scanner but I can't scan my files of 126 and 110 negatives as there is no provision for it in the hardware or the software. Get with it Canon.

      Reviewed by 10 customers

      Sort by

      Displaying reviews 1-5

      Back to top

      Previous | Next »

      (2 of 3 customers found this review helpful)

       
      3.0

      Two Things I Don't Like

      By AlW

      from Los Altos, CA

      Comments about Canon 6218B002 CanoScan 9000F Mark II Flatbed Scanner, 9600 dpi:

      I have been using the Canon 9000F MKII for six months to scan color slides that are very sharp. Typical scans are at 1800 or 2400 dpi. My major concern is the scan is never sharp. There had been a previous complaint about sharpness and for that user, the problem was resolved by changing out the scanner. I don't know if my problem is hardware or software. I always have to adjust the sharpness and only occasionally anything else. However, making this adjustment increases the file size from typically 700k to 2500k or more. My second concern is that after the initial scan, the file is in a jpg format which is lossy. Why couldn't it be in a loss less format (jif or png) until the final tweeks are made? Scan Gear provides only the one format , jpg. I'll struggle along but will always have a nagging feeling that something is wrong. IIs there a firmware adjustment that can be made?

      Comment on this review(earn points)

       
      5.0

      One Year Review

      By Patman

      from St. Louis Region, Missouri

      Pros

      • excellent images.

      Cons

      • none found as yet.

      Best Uses

        Comments about Canon 6218B002 CanoScan 9000F Mark II Flatbed Scanner, 9600 dpi:

        I have been using my 9000F Mark II for a year now. I have scanned documents and photographs with it and am quite satisfied with the performance of the equipment. Software package is also satisfactory.

        Comment on this review(earn points)

         
        5.0

        In Scanning Heaven!

        By Songcyclist

        from Lancaster PA

        Comments about Canon 6218B002 CanoScan 9000F Mark II Flatbed Scanner, 9600 dpi:

        This is my second scanner (I returned the first one immediately after scanning 2 slides - disaster!) I LOVE this scanner. I have thousands of family slides and some very old family photos that I want to archive as part of a genealogy project. After some initial struggling with when to scan with/without the FARE feature, I've got it down to a system and am getting fantastic results. Love the ability to adjust contrast, color, brightness, crop etc. I agree with the person who commented about naming the images - that's the only part I find difficult. I decided to copy them into folders on my PC desktop and am naming/dating them there so they stay in chronological order by topics. Tedious, but worth it in the end. One other thing that really helps is to use a light table to preview slides before scanning - discard the ones that aren't good and put them in the order you want to scan and save them. I just ordered an external monitor to use with my laptop so I have two workspaces, and also to see the images better for making adjustments. I highly recommend this for scanning slides - and the bonus I didn't even think about is being able to scan documents as well. Great product!

        Comment on this review(earn points)

        (3 of 3 customers found this review helpful)

         
        5.0

        Way better than my last scanner

        By Denny J

        from Austintown, Ohio

        Pros

        • Compact design
        • Durable
        • Easy to use
        • fast connectivity
        • High resolution
        • High-speed scanning
        • productivity

        Cons

          Best Uses

            Comments about Canon 6218B002 CanoScan 9000F Mark II Flatbed Scanner, 9600 dpi:

            I used to own three other scanners by another company and this scanner is by far the best of all. In fact I used to used this other companies products exclusively but when I tried to get product support they wouldn't help me. I now have Canon printers and scanner and found that they are the more superior product.in every facet of the game. This scanner takes about 1/10th the time to scan a document or image and with the use of the image garden makes scanning a joy. I now use Canon products exclusively. Everything about the scanner and printers makes using a computer much more exciting and fun. Thank you Canon.

            Comment on this review(earn points)

            (4 of 5 customers found this review helpful)

             
            3.0

            Should also have hoders to scan 126 negatives and

            By Maysie

            from Toronto, Canada

            Comments about Canon 6218B002 CanoScan 9000F Mark II Flatbed Scanner, 9600 dpi:

            There was a lot of 126 and 110 film sold in the past that I would like to scan. I like the resolution of this scanner but I can't scan my files of 126 and 110 negatives as there is no provision for it in the hardware or the software. Get with it Canon.

            Comment on this review(earn points)

            Displaying reviews 1-5

            Back to top

            Previous | Next »

            Deals! Get them now
            SUBMIT
            Join us on: