Rating: 
Summary: Excellent value
Review: Bought this as a replacement for a HP ScanJet 3300C (which never worked despite best efforts of HP techs and myself). Just needed a simple and inexpensive machine to scan a few photographs and the odd document copy. This little machine fits the bill perfectly. It is compact enough to sit atop my computer and it's operation is extremely simple. The test documents I used were a couple of letters, and they were handled really well, quietly, in less than a minute. The supporting software, while not the best, still very usuable and gets my little jobs done with no fuss. For those looking for a decent machine to handle a small to moderate workload, while not spending a small fortune, I would say this machine is eminently suitable for your needs.For sale: HP ScanJet 3300C, cosmetically perfect, ideal project for the repair enthusiast.
Rating: 
Summary: a breeze
Review: Just got my scanner....Set up a breeze, yeah, as easy as 1.2.3. Not sure if it's my computer with xp, canon's cd, or am I just getting good at this. Scanned in a minute a collage of some pictures I had and they came out perfect... Had a big clumbsy scanner years ago that would never work so I sent it back. This Canon scanner is sweet. I'd give it a 10.
Rating: 
Summary: You get what you pay for here, and nothing else.
Review: The good:
Cheap.
Easy to use. The bad:
Bus powered.
Slow.
Fine for web pages, as long as you don't have to do many scans. The ugly:
Although Canon advertises this product as being Mac compatible, they have yet to release any drivers for MacOS X. That said, it works just fine with Win2K and MacOS 9, or with third party software like ScanVue, which cost roughly as much as this hunk of plastic.
Rating:
Summary: Buy this scanner, trust me! I grieved over the choice.
Review: I was replacing a 5 year old 300 DPI Umax scanner Astra 600S. I am a product designer and scan at 150 DPI to 300 usually. I was addicted to the Umax interface and, when the Umax scanner's bulb started to go, I really read and re-read all of the reviews and descriptions that I could find. I eventually went back to the Canon 670 because it was so small, took it's power from the USB port and Amazon had it at such a good price, including shipping. It took all of 5 minutes to install on my Apple G4 as advertised. By the way, I looked at the next higher rez Canon scanner (which at the time was advertised at a 99- price by Amazon).........by the time that I confirmed that I wanted it, Canon no longer made it available to Amazon for the price. For my use, I couldn't justify it but, you really can't beat the 670, period. It's a high quality product and I should know. I specialize in designing plastic products and this one is very well executed. The scans are easily accomplished and the text scans are great. Attaching to an email letter is a snap. What else to say? Nothing. Unless you REALLY need a higher rez scanner (if you do, get a Canon), this one is all you'll ever need. Epson makes great printers but scanners? Well, the quality seemed to be a bit lower and the same applies to Microtek scanners. Higher rez scans (and prices, of course) but a far flimsier product feel. I should add that I went to the NYC Mac Expo so I could play with the various scanners and my choice was confirmed. The Canon line was of the highest apparent quality for the dollar so I feel very comfortable suggesting any Canon scanner. Microtek may very well make a good product but the feel of the lid was so cheap that I wouldn't feel very comfortable taking the chance. Still, each to their own.
Rating:
Summary: Can't beat the price/performance
Review: Installed last night on my "vintage 1998" Dell running Windows 2000 Professional. Installation was easy and the scanner was up and running quickly. Very surprised at the speed, no longer have to wait for warmup like my last scanner. Image quality was very good, especially considering the price. TWAIN software was good and the tools package allowed me to use the buttons on the front of the scanner to make copies with the touch of a button. I recommend this for the new parent who wants to scan photos for Grandma and Grandpa!
Rating:
Summary: Falling Behind?
Review: I got this scanner to replace my Epson Perfection 610 that was accidentally dropped. I figured that after two years the LIDE scanner series, which was already available when I purchased my Epson, would have been improved to make a better replacement. I didn't find it true, however. Here are some of my observations. Likes:
The unit is arguably the thinnist, lightest and the sleekest unit available for your money. It only requires an USB cable to operate, which not only saves cable clutter but can be unplugged easily for storage or portability. It can be mounted vertically with included stand, with space saving advantages. The combination gives those who don't use their scanners very often what they would probably want: ease of storage, no cable clutter and tiny footprint. Dislikes:
The unit feels plasticky and [inexpensive]. You see the entire unit through the scanner's glass bed, and it consists of a small circuit board and an imager gliding on a steel rod. The case is entirely plastic; even the light diffuser lens on the imager is plastic. It contributes to its light weight, however. The scanning speed is below average, without being overly sluggish (not unbearable). The quickest the imager could move (an assumption, based on the imager's movement speed after a preview in order to relocate itself to its starting point. It should be, in my estimation, the fastest point of the imager's movement) appeared to be relatively slow, or about as fast as my old Epson's (Perfection 610) would move while scanning a 300dpi lineart. While it's not "clunky" like my first UMax 610, the scanning was a tad noisy. It's a minor complaint, except that it also is an inconsistent noise, with minor buzzes coming from elsewhere on the scanner chassis as the imager moves. This further contributes to the "[inexpensive] feel" of the scanner. There's a quirkiness of this scanner which I think should be noted. I used my scanners, which were both fluorsecent lamp units, to scan 3D objects often; i.e. things other than a flat document. On those scanners the objects came out like a close-up picture and worked perfectly. (works somewhat like conventional copier scanning units) The Canon with its LIDE technology, however, does not work with anything other than a flat piece of document. It seems to be depenent on a focal plane, so that when I placed a 3D object, anything outside the plane of the glass bed would appear blurry and smudged (even just a few millimeters away from the plane). This may appear to be a minor issue, as probably not many use it to scan 3D objects. However, as some documents (folded letters and books, for example) and photos can not be completely flattened even with the cover, I think it may be a potential problem. Conclusion:
I think most flourescent lamp based flatbed scanners of the price range should perform better in speed and color, without the quirky sensitivity to focal planes. Yet few on the market can compare to the CanoScan LIDE models's "cool" factor, portability and sleek design. If you do a lot of scanning with color and speed as your top priority, get something else. If you don't do a lot of scan, and would rather have portability and compactness over speed and performance, this one will reward you with style.
Rating: 
Summary: Not bad for 60 bucks
Review: ...have to admit I was a little frustrated when I first started using it. It does not come with a detailed user guide, just a quick-start pamphlet that helps you install the software and hook up the hardware. I wish there was a user guide that showed how to use the software, I'm a dummy and need the step by step instructions! I figured out how to do a basic scan but that's about it, I have no idea how the other software works. I also have to warn you (I think another reviewer mentioned this)--the scanner has a hard time when it comes to photos with a matte finish. I keep getting white specks in the photos...
Rating:
Summary: What can you ask for $[money]?
Review: As the owner of a graphic design agency, I use image scanners for a lot of different things. At this price point, we mostly use them for web graphics and other low-resolution needs, but I just used our N670U to scan high-res images for a product catalog and it performed beautifully. Are high-res color image scans as good as with a big-time pro scanner? No. Is the unit as rugged and bulletproof as a big-time pro scanner? No. Is it likely to last a decade under hard, consistent use? No. But it's $[money]. C'mon. I mean, for $[money], it becomes almost disposable anyway. If you use your scanner constantly, and you really plan to beat it up, then you have a choice. You can either spend bigger money and get a really rugged piece, or you can buy a new Canon every year or so. Technology and scan quality keep marching forward anyway, so why tie up a bunch more money in an expensive scanner that will almost invariably become semi-obsolete in couple years anyway? This N670U is a good little buy. It's tiny, it scans pretty quickly, you can store it on its edge, and the results are good enough for almost any type of use you are likely to put it to. Buy it, have fun with it, and remember that you paid $[money]for it. You'll smile all the way to the bank.
Rating: 
Summary: Broken from the start
Review: I was very disappointed to wait on this scanner for a week and a half for it to not work straight out of the box. As mentioned in a couple of other reviews, the scanning mechanism got stuck. It started scanning and then returned and made a horrible noise. The normal scanning operation seemed to be pretty loud even before it got stuck.
Rating:
Summary: very good-but one thing wrong
Review: This scanner is maybe the best one I ever picked(actually my first) The Canon N670U is the lightest and affordable scanner ever! Pros
-Lightweight
-Affordable
-good quality scans
-asy to use-good user interface
-ompatible with XP Cons
-The plastic stand is flimsy Also, scans are a little slow and images may take up a lot of space, but that is what is expected of most scanners.
| 
