Canon RS40 vs Epson 680 Scanner for snapshots

[@cwaynefox]

Just to make it clear, I see comments criticizing me in points that don’t apply. I’ve made it very clear this review is from one perspective only ... someone who has hundreds or thousands of old, faded snapshots, and just want a way to digitize them to share with family and friends. For that reason, the Epson wins hands down because nothing even comes remotely close to its ability to somewhat restore the original colors and contrast on the fly as you scan the photographs. This isn’t about high quality scanning or color accurate scanning to match an original. None of these sheet fed scanners are appropriate for high end color critical work. As far as business scanners, I’m sure they all have there plus and minuses but I offer no opinion on this and if you look at the other videos in this play list none are overall reviews of these scanners. It was very apparent in only a few minutes that scanning with the epson will yield far better results for this task, especially for those with no real training and experience using scanners.

[@raymondchandler100]

Wayne, i have years and years of photo in boxes. I am procrastinating starting the project of scanning them all. I googled Canon RS40 vs Epson 680 Scanner and found your presentation. Thank you so much for all the valuable information that you shared. I will look at your other videos. What a great service you have provided. Thank you

[@cwaynefox]

Glad it helped. How are you coming in your project?

[@ericsbuell]

Ha ha I'm still procrastinating in 2024! . Going hit the button soon.

[@elainefeather9465]

Hi and thank you ! The Epson scanner has been on my radar for a while now, and I have just returned to the matter of digitising old photos. I came across the Canon scanner and was curious, so like a previous gentleman commented , perfect timing ! Its because of people like you ,that people like me can spend our hard earned money more wisely and save us from unnecessary bad experiences .Thank you .

[@cwaynefox]

Glad I could help!

[@orchard_vids]

This is a great review. Straight and to the point! Saved me watching multiple videos just to see how these scanners work.

[@davidcrocker4276]

A well put together review. Before watching this review, I was convinced that the Canon scanner was the way to go. After watching this review, I changed my mind on the Canon scanner. Thank you.

[@mia707]

Fantastic! I’d been undecided for a very long time between these 2. You’ve answer my questions better than the short video clips by each company. I have thousands of phones from my parents home (which burned to the ground a short time after I hauled them home). I didn’t want my 4 siblings and all our kids to go through and grab their favorites. I’m going with the Epson. Thank you so very much Mia

[@cwaynefox]

Glad it was helpful!

[@maureentaphouse5206]

Thank you so much for doing this comparison as this is exactly what a non techie like me needs to see. The contrast in corrections, reverse writing and the numbering results are obvious even to me so yes the Epsom is the one to buy for my family history work. Thank you for the clarity shown in the comparisons., much appreciated.

[@cwaynefox]

Glad it was helpful!

[@lcchee]

Most of your criticisms of the Canon really are about the software. I already have photo editing software, so what would really be helpful is a comparison of the un-enhanced scanning ability of the two machines. For something like this, a sheet fed scanner, the important thing to me is to digitize the paper quickly and, most importantly, accurately. In that respect, the key factor would be the hardware. The sensitivity of the Canon in picking up the Kodak watermark, which you counted in the negative column, would indicate that the Canon's hardware was better at picking up details and the Epson was missing lighter details. If I wanted the scanner software to fix the photos, I would probably go with a high quality flatbed and Photoshop. So instead of comparing. how badly the Canon's software "fixed" the photos to how the Epson's software fixed the photos, how did the hardware actually perform? Can you shut off the enhancements and get it to reproduce old photos as is for editing/enhancing later?

[@BenReese]

This is where I'm kinda torn too... Is the Epson software free? Can I scan with Canon then use Epson's AI to magically edit the photos for me? If so, it sounds like we could save a lot of money and still get good scans. 🤔

[@charlesfirth1879]

Truly excellent video on the subject. I'm sold. Epson it is. This will replace my 20 year old Epson which still works.

[@astropgn]

The contrast does seem to be heavily added on the canon scanner. I am convinced that the epson is better, but unfortunately Epson doesn't sell them in my country. So I will have to use the canon, or find an alternative. Fortunately I know programming, so organizing the pictures with the correct names, setting the right orientation and all of that won't be a problem. I might try to look into some different automated way to process this images. Maybe adobe has something that can autocorrect bulk pictures, I don't know.

[@joe_ninety_one5076]

Be aware of a few things. 1. The Epson is a dust magnet. It is very hard to get streak-free scans caused by dust particles. It scans very quickly, but you often have to repeat the scans many times to get a streak-free scan. It should come with a box of cleaning cloths, not one. It scores the pictures after a few scans though. A flatbed is not a lot slower in the end, nor is a Plustek Z300. It is a manual feed, but it is a lot less vulnerable to dust streaks. 2. Don't fret about photo restoration. What you want is an exact scan of the photos as they are. You can use a batch photo editor to process everything later. If all you have is a processed photo, you cannot recover the original. You cannot reverse the process and start again if the result is not very pleasing. 3. Do not buy the Epson if most of your photos are on matt paper. All dark shadow areas will look snowy. It picks up the uneven matt surface. I don't know about the RS40, but the Plustek Z300 is much better in this respect.

[@cwaynefox]

personally I didn’t have much issue with dust. just wiped it between each box. As far as photo restoration, I haven’t found any batch photo restoration equal to the Epson software. You can save the original scan with it as well as the restored scan if you want, but let’s face it, these are just really old faded snapshots that you want to be able to share with family and others. These aren’t historically significant events that your scan for the sake of all humanity. With this scanner, just scan them and your done. They look great, are more than adequate, and as I demonstrated in my view, when printed are equal to or usually superior to the original print. I tested the Plustek, still think for most the Epson is the better choice.

[@joe_ninety_one5076]

@@cwaynefox I agree with you about the Epson software. It restored some old photos much better that some other packages that I tried, and better than I could do myself playing with adjustment for quite some time. On matt photo paper, though, as opposed to gloss, the speckling in dark areas is far more noticeable than the Plustek. The processor does not improve it. In my view, this alone makes the choice between the two much harder for those with predominantly matt prints.

[@robert7622]

@@cwaynefox Better then Lightroom batch processsing?

[@creativenail]

I'm glad to see your video before unpacking my order from B&H, although RS40 has been slashed by $150, I'm gonna return it and order the Epson. Thank you.

[@cwaynefox]

Glad I could help

[@islandjazz788]

Thanks for this great video! The side by side photo comparisons made it clear to me that paying more for the Epson is justified by the far superior color correction.

[@cwaynefox]

Glad it was helpful!

[@villarossa]

Great video, very informative. Thanks for posting this. The Canon scan quality seems to be over-saturated and reddish. Just wondering what (Image Processing) setting was used to get these results? At 7:00 shows the Image Processing -> Fading Correction was ticked. If you scan the photos without any Image Processing options ticked, would it produce a true to life condition of the photo?

[@cwaynefox]

My videos are strictly from the perspective of scanning old snap shots which will naturally involve some type of color restoration ... so a critical feature. I didn’t test the Canon for straight scanning with out modifications, but it has complete color controls so you can tweak all the settings to adjust for contrast and saturation, so I would assume for straight scanning it can do a pretty good job. Color restoration is much more complex and it’s pretty difficult to adjust scanner settings to compensate and correct faded or discolored photos ... and you would have to have dozens of settings to handle to the variety of fading and discoloration. That’s what is so impressive about the Epson Color Restoration algorithms ... it seems Epson can come pretty close to figuring out what a color should be based on what it has faded to.

[@pattyo6821]

Much appreciation for your excellent video review. This is how a comparison review should be done. Your review answered my questions: quality versus editing/sorting time versus cost? I am glad you did side-by-side comparisons which was helpful. I have always been content with Epson's photo quality and your video reinforces that is the way for me to go at this time. Thank you again for this valuable information.

[@hubbsllc]

Think you just saved me from making a mistake. Thank you.

[@christophermorgan1139]

2:36 @cwaynefox Where did you find these boxes?

[@cwaynefox]

www.archivalmethods.com/category/boxes?gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjwsuSzBhCLARIsAIcdLm7jWo_wMUHvMKBU-8gcgTtzOGy_xr5t3e38LerDmPf2v5H7Lw9YEKoaAgFQEALw_wcB

[@davidwalker575]

Thanks for this review, it’s what I’ve been looking for.

[@jimheaton6534]

Great videos. I saw you were storing your photos in cardboard flash card/photo boxes. Where can I get those…didn’t find anything on amazon. I’m shipping 6000 photos and don’t want to pay a fortune in small boxes (each box will be from a a photo album).

[@rachurleyco]

Also interested in the boxes. Thx!

[@christophermorgan1139]

Did you ever get an answer?

[@robertnystrom289]

Hi! I was just mulling over the Epson vs Canon vs others. Perfect timing! I guess the Epson is in my near future. Cleaning- I realize cleaning the heads is a function of the crap dragging over it. But in general, any tips on cleaning? Do you scan a photo and look for lines, or just automatically clean every time regardless of how many previously scanned? Can one OVER clean it, as in damage the head? What do you use to clean it- I see the Epson manual does NOT recommend alcohol. Many Thanks!

[@cwaynefox]

All I do is one swipe with a clean microfiber cloth. The epson will warn you if it detects anything, and reminds you to clean the scan bar. Pretty straight forward. All that should ever get on it is dust and paper dust, nothing that actually sticks to them. I’ll do a quick swipe every one hundred prints or so, or if I haven’t used it for a while.

[@robertnystrom289]

@@cwaynefox Much appreciated- thanks again!

[@Banditten2002]

Thanks for your review of Canon and Epson scanners, you have convinced me that it is the Epson that we should buy, both the mechanics and the software are better than in the Canon scanner.. 🙂greetings from Denmark

[@cwaynefox]

Glad I could help!

[@davidmann5878]

Have you seen the Epson FastFoto leave any damaging marks on the prints themselves? I've seen this reported by one use given that the rollers don't have raised edges rather than any chamfer.

[@cwaynefox]

I have not seen any damage. they do include a large clear protective sleeve that you can use for photos on delicate for very thin paper, but most snapshots are designed to be handled pretty roughly.

[@ToddfromLA]

I bought the Epson FF-680W last year based on your in-depth review. Thank you for sharing your knowledge in this area.

[@cwaynefox]

Glad it was helpful!

[@Heb4Seven]

Wow, Good helpful video... Thank You. I was looking to save some money on a good high speed/quality scanner but... I'm convinced on the Epson now.

[@cwaynefox]

Glad I could help!

[@navegador5175]

Wayne, I know I'm two years late but it seems these scanners are still available. It's clear the Epson model is a better buy if one doesn't plan on messing with the scanned files after the fact, but would you say Canon is acceptable for somebody who is fairly adept at post-processing images? From a "raw scan" perspective is it comparable with the Epson? The reason I ask is the Canon is locally available to me but the Epson would have to be imported at significant extra cost, well above the U.S. price difference. While I don't look forward to even batch-processing scans after the fact, truth is the Epson FF-680W would end up costing me more than twice as much as the Canon. Thanks for the great video.

[@cwaynefox]

To fix faded images in other applications is very tedious and difficult. The Epson algorithm seems to really understand what the original color was based on what it has “faded” to, and doesn’t slow down the import process at all. There are some applications out there that claim they are designed to “restore” faded photographs, so if one of those would work than I would guess the canon should be fine since it can match the original “fade” photograph pretty well. I may start experimenting with some of these newer products designed to restore photographs after Christmas to see if they offer an option.

[@mgbearsfan6650]

Wayne, I absolutely love your scanner videos. I can't find anything else around that actually compares scanner results like your videos. I have been looking for the best scanner for old photos at 1200 dpi. I ordered a Canon LiDE 400, came with dust under the glass and streaked 1st day, got a replacement and the same thing. Considering Epson v39, v600, FF 680W, or anything really that will give the best results at 1200 dpi. Any suggestions? Thanks again!

[@cwaynefox]

no point in using 1200 DPI with the FastFoto scanners, it’s just interpolating it up from 600, which a computer can do as well. To get true 1200 you need a flatbed scanner. Personally I would probably go with the v600. I should review that scanner soon. I think it will be comparable to the it’s higher end versions at a somewhat affordable price. One nice feature of Epson flatbed software is it will locate and create separate files of individual photos on the scanning bed. Not nearly as fast the FF680, but you can put 5 3x5’s on the scanner glass, and it will scan each one individually and apply Epson photo restoration if you want.

[@joe_ninety_one5076]

I bought a V600. It came with dust under the glass. I didn't notice for 9 months (I don't use it much). It was replaced with a reconditioned unit under warranty. Nine months later and no longer under warranty it has more dust under the glass than the first one, about half a dozen specks. Cost to clean (in UK) £180 _ about $220. It also occasionally scans my face when I lift the lid, which seems to trip some microswitch. Do yourself a favour and get a LiDE 400. At least you can throw it away.

[@sergpryimachuk]

Your video is very helpful. Thank you very much. Due to the russian invasion of my country, our family decided to back up all of our family archives (otherwise, who knows where a new missile would hit). So, we will try to get one of Epson's scanners.

[@cwaynefox]

I hope you can locate one. Thoughts and prayers are with you as you deal with this horrible and unjust invasion of your homeland.

[@rogerf3622]

Great info here! Thanks for taking the time to create this video. These were the 2 scanners I was looking at.

[@cwaynefox]

Glad it was helpful!

[@livingahumanlife2651]

I bought the Epson 680W after watching several of your videos about the scanner. All in all, very happy with it. But as you point out, there is quite a lot of noise visible in some of the images. BUT, HERE IS THE SOLUTION; I bought the software "Topaz DeNoise AI" and it has batch processing. It works brilliantly in getting rid of much of the noise. So impressed (and I'm not paid by Topaz, just a regular photo nerd). So definitely recommend this combo, and Topaz has a free trial, so people can see for them self :)

[@cwaynefox]

Thanks. I’ll test it out.

[@livingahumanlife2651]

@@cwaynefox Yeah give it a try. There a many good AI noise removal programs out there. I've heard that also "ON1 NoNoise AI" is a great program. Haven't tried it myself though.

[@jpidhirney]

I have the Epson and I hate the way it scans from the bottom up, requiring the software to renumber the order of the scans. As a photoshop professional I have no issues color correcting images myself and I never scan the back of the images. Is the un-corrected, color quality on the Canon scanner comparable to the Epson? I know this video is a year old and you most likely returned the scanner but any help would be great. Thanks

[@cwaynefox]

simple renumbering, never had an issue with it, pretty transparent. As far as color correcting, my videos are intended for people having thousands of old, probably faded snapshots, to scan. Epson color restoration has specific algorithms designed to deal with photographic color fading, very difficult to do efficiently with Photoshop. I’m pretty good at photoshop as well (been using it since version 1) andI can’t imagine having to color correct several thousand faded poorly colored photographs and most of the time I dont’ think I could duplicate what the Epson algorithms are doing. Somehow Epson can analyze what a color has become through fading and figure out pretty well what it was originally. If the images are not faded the Canon printer does a pretty good job of getting a “mateh” to an original, and if I remember correctly has a pretty good interface to tweak the scanning process and refine it if your goal is to get a match to an original. But you can fiddle with all the settings you want, and still can’t get the color quality of the Epson if you are trying to restore original colors of a 40 year old faded photograph.

[@sircasino614]

7:50 When I set mine to a path, it doesn't work :/

[@cwaynefox]

Not sure why that wouldn’t work, since I didn’t stick with this scanner can’t test it. Only thought is the software must have permission to access your drives. Might want to check that in system settings.

[@adrewdio2694]

Thanks for that very informative presentation and in checking scanners, I also view the one star reviews of customer issues(Amazon or ebay, etc.) and sometimes, professionals give advice such as better choices, what did/ didn't work with their units, ways they fixed it, options towards other choices. Five stars for your communication, without distracting music in the background, as I've seen often on many other videos from users who don't even say anything on what steps they go threw in repairs of computers, for example, with music in the background. Sometimes those one star reviews are fake or someone just wanted to give a company the business by defamation of another one and usually, I can spot those if I'm clear headed enough while listening to my intuition. All the best to you and thanks for reading this far and saving me some time which, as you're aware of, cannot be returned (Stoic philosophy.).

[@diegolopezdominguez801]

Thanks for the video, very useful! I have a question, are the Epson v850 or Epson 120000XL models superior to the ff680? Greetings from Argentina!

[@cwaynefox]

The advantage of the ff680 is the auto feed and speed. Flat bed scanners will always deliver a superior scan. Depending on what you’re scanning it can be advantageous .... especially true for Black and White silver based photographs since they have substantially more detail to capture when scanning that color photographs. I did a video offering some advice on settings and quality which demonstrates this a little bit. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nIPTiKKQeLOqqNEsi=L2b53KS8hIpJJbWa

[@dons1643]

thanks for showing us the differences,,, I was considering the Canon, but not now,,, for photos the Epson is superior image quality, however I need one for scanning business documents..

[@cwaynefox]

The epson includes software to scan documents as well. It’s a separate program, and works pretty well. I haven’t used it a lot, but comes in handy on occasion.

[@skybox-101]

You said you put them in a cloud to share with family. That is a great idea. Whar cloud? And does the cloud force compression on the photos?

[@cwaynefox]

I have a synology server and use their software, such as DS Photo and DS video to share the photos and movies. For those that are shared, the compression might be controlled by DS Photo, not sure, but sharing for viewing on a device usually wants to be compressed to make them easy to upload a view. they look great on even a 70” TV . I also have them stored separately as an archive and basically it’s just a NAS with them saved in a folder, so those are the original files.

[@AlTheEngineer]

Thank you sir for this video, I will 100% buy the Epson after watching your video!

[@cwaynefox]

Enjoy it

[@AlTheEngineer]

@@cwaynefox thank you!

[@patmclaughlin8823]

Thank you so much for that very informative, easy to understand, video. I don't mind paying $500, but I was trying to find a high quality photo and document scanner that also included a printer and copier, but I've had no luck. If you have any information about scanner/copiers, please let me know. Thanks again for a great presentation!

[@bbscio]

convinced me... its the Epson... thanks.

[@michaelmalone9062]

My Epson FastFoto FF680's scan button on the machine itself does not work. The software on my computer scans. Epson customer service has not been helpful. Do I have a defective machine or is there a way to get the start button working. I've watched your videos and thank you in advance for any advice you might give me.

[@skybox-101]

Thanks for this review. What setup wouldcypu use to digitize our old family vhs?

[@cwaynefox]

I used the Elgato device ... did a video about it. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZvYnp-GpJuXarc

[@ausgra17]

Thank you, very enlightening and no pun intended.

[@Ripdizzle01]

Can't you setup a job for scanning, so you can name the sequence as needed?

[@M.M.M.M.M890]

Great comparison.

[@cwaynefox]

Thanks

[@bastel-traum]

thanks that was a great help to decide...👍

[@annapoontalks8430]

So I have to change setting for each photo or edit each of them?

[@cwaynefox]

sorry, didn’t see this. that’s a problem with the Canon and scanning old photographs that are somewhat faded ... you have to try and correct each one individually afterwards, and the Epson software is better at figuring out what a color should be based on what it has faded to throughout the image.

[@elliotresnick5433]

I purchased the Epson and while the first batch at 300 dpi scanned very rapidly, and the second batch at 600 dpi also scanned a bit slower, today the third batch at 600 dpi scanned significantly at a slower pace. I’m unclear what is causing this issue as I have thousands of photos still to scan.

[@cwaynefox]

When you say significantly slower, how many seconds per photo? Are these 3x5’s or larger? Any reason you’re scanning at 600dpi? Old snapshots generally don’t have enough detail recorded to offer any better results at 600 dpi than at 300 dpi.

[@elliotresnick5433]

@@cwaynefox the first and second batches were 4x6’s, whereas third batch were 3x5’s (actually proofs from an event). Again, while the 4x6’s slowed down to maybe 2 seconds from 1 second when increasing from 300 to 600 dpi, the third batch took several seconds for each scan like it was struggling with a buffer. Might this had something to do with the WiFi connection because I did move the location of the device for the third batch to different room??

[@cwaynefox]

@@elliotresnick5433 I found the wifi speeds pretty flakey at times, so I stuck with USB when doing large batches. The 2 seconds sounds pretty short for 600dpi, but admittedly I haven’t scanned anything in at 600dpi for a couple of years so my memory might be clouded. I’d try a direct connection with USB to see what the times are, and then you would have an idea how much the wifi might be slowing that down.

[@elliotresnick5433]

@@cwaynefox USB solved the issue even at 600dpi

[@dino24rock]

Thank you so much for your information. It really help me!

[@cwaynefox]

Glad it was helpful!

[@SFzip]

that was a dang good review! thank you!

[@cwaynefox]

thanks

[@SeanDillman]

Thanks for the video Wayne. Do you know how these scanners compare to scanners from the Fujitsu ScanSnap line? If you're interested, here is my KZbin review video on the flagship iX1600: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hqCXnJ-YgN6FjKs Cheers! 🙂

[@pdubsweir3]

super valuable review. Thank you.

[@cwaynefox]

You are welcome!

[@thomasjones-yc8lf]

Great review, but the Raggedy Ann and Andy costumes scared me to death

[@cwaynefox]

lol. they were the in thing 40 years ago when my kids were little.

[@a12e24t]

🙂👍