Canoscan 9950F: Discontinued. Why?

Any good explanation for this?

Also curious if anybody knows a difference between the 9950F and the less expensive 8600F, besides the ability of the 9950F to scan 4x5's. I heard they have the same Dmax, but not sure where people are getting these numbers.

I've been thinking, a used 4x5 camera and a consumer grade scanner could theoretically produce higher resolution images than professional digital cameras. If a negative film (low contrast) is exposed properly, then there's no need for high dynamic range. Just scan, then increase contrast and saturation in Photoshop. The original scan might be 400 megapixels, but the high-quality processed image would be 100 megapixels, right?

funnypicmaker wrote in post #2694244
Also curious if anybody knows a difference between the 9950F and the less expensive 8600F, besides the ability of the 9950F to scan 4x5's. I heard they have the same Dmax, but not sure where people are getting these numbers.

Sorry that I can't answer why the 9950F was discontinued. I do seem to remember that the 9950F had a different and better optical scanning element. It also had a FireWire interface. You don't usually slice off a part of your product line if a product has features the rest of your products don't have.

Unfortunately the 9950F has already been removed from Canon's USA site otherwise we could go and check out the specifications. Link: Canon USA scanners

And a bunch of people liked it too! I've read many good comments on the Internet. Supposedly it has a Dmax of 3.8 (not bad for $350 to $400). There was one bad review I saw, but several people commented saying the author didn't know how to use it.

I've got a 9950F and have been very pleased with it. I bought mostly for it's ability to scan larger format negs and slides. It does an OK job on 35mm, but I have a Nikon film scanner for that size. I suspect the number of people scanning film is dwindling and the market for a scanners like this dropping. The Nikon scanner I have is no longer in production probably for this reason.