Product comparison · 2 scanners

Canon CanoScan DR-7090C Flatbed scanner A3 vs Canon LiDE 700F

13specifications compared
11differ
2identical
22known for one product only

Key differences

Maximum scan size
- CanoScan DR-7090C Flatbed scanner A3:297 x 420 mm
- LiDE 700F:216 x 297 mm
Input colour depth
- CanoScan DR-7090C Flatbed scanner A3:24 bit
- LiDE 700F:48 bit
Film scanning
- CanoScan DR-7090C Flatbed scanner A3:No
- LiDE 700F:Yes
Sensor type
- CanoScan DR-7090C Flatbed scanner A3:CMOS CIS
- LiDE 700F:CIS
Maximum ISO A-series paper size
- CanoScan DR-7090C Flatbed scanner A3:A3
- LiDE 700F:A4
ISO A-series sizes (A0...A9)
- CanoScan DR-7090C Flatbed scanner A3:A3, A4
- LiDE 700F:A4
Power consumption (typical)
- CanoScan DR-7090C Flatbed scanner A3:210 W
- LiDE 700F:2.5 W
Power consumption (standby)
- CanoScan DR-7090C Flatbed scanner A3:6.4 W
- LiDE 700F:1.5 W

Side by side

Differences highlightedShow differences only

Comparison of DR-7090C, LiDE 700F
35 specifications	A Canon CanoScan DR-7090C Flatbed scanner A3 Model DR-7090C View product	B Canon LiDE 700F View product
Scanning3 differ
Maximum scan sizeDiffers	297 x 420 mm	216 x 297 mm
Optical scanning resolutionKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	9600 x 9600 DPI
Input colour depthDiffers	24 bit	48 bit
Film scanningDiffers	No	Yes
Duplex scanningKnown for one	Yes	Unknown — not stated by the source
Greyscale levelsKnown for one	256	Unknown — not stated by the source
Designidentical
Product colourKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Black, Silver
Performance1 differ
Sensor typeDiffers	CMOS CIS	CIS
Paper handling2 differ
Maximum ISO A-series paper sizeDiffers	A3	A4
ISO A-series sizes (A0...A9)Differs	A3, A4	A4
LetterKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Yes
Ports & interfacesidentical
USB portKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Yes
USB versionKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	2.0
Standard interfacesKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	USB 2.0
Power2 differ
Power consumption (typical)Differs	210 W	2.5 W
Power consumption (standby)Differs	6.4 W	1.5 W
Weight & dimensions1 differ
WidthKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	292 mm
DepthKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	409 mm
HeightKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	44 mm
WeightDiffers	41 kg	2.1 kg
Packaging content1 differ
Bundled softwareDiffers	ISIS/ TWAIN Drivers (Windows 2000/XP Pro/ XP Home/ Vista) Capture Perfect 3.0	ScanGear MP Navigator EX ArcSoft PhotoStudio
System requirementsidentical
Mac operating systems supportedKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Mac OS X 10.3 Panther, Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger, Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard
Windows operating systems supportedKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	Windows 2000 Professional, Windows Vista Business, Windows Vista Business x64, Windows Vista Enterprise, Windows Vista Enterprise x64, Windows Vista Home Basic, Windows Vista Home Basic x64, Windows Vista Home Premium, Windows Vista Home Premium x64, Windows Vista Ultimate, Windows Vista Ultimate x6
Mac compatibilityKnown for one	Yes	Unknown — not stated by the source
Operational conditions1 differ
Operating temperature (T-T)Known for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	5 - 35 °C
Operating relative humidity (H-H)Differs	25 - 80%	10 - 90%
Other featuresidentical
Film typeKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	35 mm
Scan timeKnown for one	Unknown — not stated by the source	12 s
Dimensions (WxDxH)Known for one	618 x 602 x 317 mm	Unknown — not stated by the source
Maximum media widthKnown for one	139.7 - 304.8 mm	Unknown — not stated by the source
CertificationKnown for one	RoHS	Unknown — not stated by the source
Maximum length of sheet mediaKnown for one	128 - 432 mm	Unknown — not stated by the source
Sustainabilityidentical
Sustainability certificatesKnown for one	ENERGY STAR	Unknown — not stated by the source

A dash means the value is not stated by the source. Unknown values are never counted for or against a product, and there is no overall score.

More scanner comparisons

All scanner comparisons