dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
611
share rss forum feed

IanR

join:2001-03-22
Fort Mill, SC

1 edit

Suggestions for a scanner

Whn I changed computers a while ago I was basically forced to retire my 10 year old HP Scanjet 3c. I love that machine but it has SCSI inputs and a replacement USB to SCSI cable is very hard to find and if found cost $75-100! A real shame because that machine was utterly reliable.

I have recently used an Epson 4490 Photo but it's so SLOW and now it needs 'rebooting" to struggle to copy one page. I tried Epson support but they culd barely help me.

So time has come to look for a new scanner.

I use the scanner for copying documents and occasionally to scan in photos.

Suggestions please for a new scanner, or alternaively an inexpensive source for the USB/SCSI cable for one last try for the HP.



AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1

Canon DR-9080C



printscreen

join:2003-11-01
Juana Diaz, PR
Reviews:
·Choice Cable TV
·Coqui/PRTC
reply to IanR

Those HP printers and scanners of that time are built like tanks. I have a Deskjet 710C from 1999 that still works nicely. Last year I had to replace my computer after the motherboard died and when I put everything back together I discovered that the new MB didn't have a parallel port. I had to obtain a USB adapter because I didn't want to replace my still perfectly good printer with one of the cheap ones sold today. I know that day will come but until then...

I have a Canon LiDE 20 scanner that works very nicely and is very compact. It's probably 5 years old so I guess it's been out of production for a long time. But in general Canon scanners are very good.


IanR

join:2001-03-22
Fort Mill, SC
reply to IanR

Te HP 8800F seems well regarded for many uses and takes volume. I beliee it's being replaced by the 9000F. Anyone know is the latter is as good or better than the 8800F?


decx
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC
reply to IanR

I started with HP Scanjets back in the 90s but after mediocre performance and a premature failure of the power supply on my latest one I switch over to Canon. Right now, I'm running a 8600F and a LiDE 600F both from 2-3 years ago and they do perform quite well. The only minor thing is that the standard Canon software suite, while does function well, is quite clunky.



FizzyMyNizzy

join:2004-05-29
New York, NY
Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL

1 edit
reply to IanR

Canon CanoScan LiDE 200 $77.99
»www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···38111024
I use that and I like it a lot. It only use USB. Not power adapter needed. And it use green light.

»www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/···Features


IanR

join:2001-03-22
Fort Mill, SC
reply to IanR

Several referrals for Cannon scanners:)

The comment about the standard software being poor is worrying. The Epson I have tried to get along with has seemingly horrible software as while the machine is fully connected it's just not obeying ANY version of their software. That's why I need to change and I want to change to something rock solid.

I had a great experience with the HP Scanjet so am surprised at the problem mentioned.



ejg1

join:2004-12-01
Pacifica, CA

2 edits

I used to have the exact same 3c scanner and it was a reliable tank until after 12 years, then it just died.

I did my research, and considering my current project was to continue scanning the family photo albums, I went with a Kodak i1210 scanner. It is surely expensive and found out later, to me, worth every penny I paid. (600 bucks!!!) The thing shortened my project by MONTHS.

The i1210 allows you to place a stack of papers or photos in the slot and it scans them all unattended while you do other stuff. Lots of features like auto straighten, or tweak the first scan and run the rest with those settings.

So the 3c died 1/4 the way through my project. It took about 30 seconds to scan a single 4x5 photo. One by one, by one... it was taking forever so I was glad later the thing died.

As I mentioned, the thing is not the cheapest scanner but when I considered other one-doc at a time cheap assed scanners, the Kodak saved me more then just a boat load of time. I could scan a batch of 4x5-20 photos in about 2 minutes. I would say 80% of my time was in gathering the photos and returning them to their albums. The other 10% was digital computer organization, and the last 10% the actual scanning. Great quality scans. The only problem is that items smaller than a 1.5" edge cant be grabbed and pulled into the scanner but that can be worked around.

»graphics.kodak.com/docimaging/US···id=38038

Oh yes... 64 bit worthy and their tech support spends an unlimited amount of time with you over the phone for free.



DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1
reply to IanR

If you're talking about parallel and not SCSI, pick up an old JetDirect print server and make your old IIIc a stand-alone network printer.


decx
Premium
join:2002-06-07
Vancouver, BC

I believe the OP is referring to the Scanjet 3c rather than a Laserjet 3.



DrStrange
Technically feasible
Premium
join:2001-07-23
West Hartford, CT
kudos:1

If it were a ScanJet, then the SCSI interface would make sense.

Thanks.



aurgathor

join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
kudos:1
reply to IanR

Why don't you just get a SCSI card?

Suitable cards should be dirt cheap on eBay.
--
Palin 2012!


IanR

join:2001-03-22
Fort Mill, SC

1 edit
reply to IanR

OOOPs yes sorry for the misstype.

I also happen to use a trusty HP Laserjet 4 printer as well so I must have been crosseyed when I typed in the original spec.

It's a Scanner an HP Scanjet 3C.

I am now following the suggested trails.



Mdoc
Ehh... munch munch... what's up, Doc?
Premium
join:2007-03-27
Sterling, VA
kudos:1

1 edit

I don't have a problem with the Epson V200 scanner. It was the cheapest I could find, and it works well.
edit: it uses an USB interface, not SCSI.