Canon CanoScan LiDE 400 Slim Color Image Scanner

I read all the reviews saying it doesn’t work with a MacBook Pro. But I thought I was smarter than those other guys, so I ordered it. When the scanner arrived, I downloaded and installed the Mac-specific drivers and software from the Canon website and set it up. I was able to see it in Printers and Scanners, and the IJ Scan Utility worked, too. So, I slapped a photo on the bed and hit scan. Nothing. I rebooted and tried again. Nothing. I deleted the apps and started over. Everything looked fine on the software side. Still nothing when I actually tried to scan something. No noise, no movement, nothing. So, I began to pack it up for return to Amazon. That’s when I noticed that the “travel lock” on the bottom of the scanner was still engaged. It actually took a bit of effort to unlock it. I plugged the scanner back into my MacBook Pro, and BINGO! Works like a champ. For what it’s worth, I honestly think that may have been the problem for many of the folks who couldn’t get it to work with their Mac. It is easy to overlook the locking mechanism on the bottom, and the scanning software doesn’t give any error messages stating that the scanner is locked.

Canon CanoScan LiDe 400 Slim Scanner, sold by Canon.

After almost 20 years of reliable performance, my trusty Microtek SlimScan C6 flatbed finally bit the dust. I seriously considered buying another C6 (new old stock) because it was so reliable, easy to use, and full of features. BUT, the C6 probably won’t interface well with newer versions of Windows (i.e., anything later than XP), so I decided to look for something newer.

For $ 90, the LiDe 400 seemed to fit both my budget and needs. Here’s the PROs and CONs I have found:

PROs:

1. Really inexpensive
2. Pretty simple to install on any Windows computer with Win 7 or higher.
3. Does a really decent job of scanning documents and photographs (see below).

CONs:

1. Doesn’t come with a manual (hardcopy or on the CD), and there doesn’t seem to be a way to download a whole manual from the Canon LiDe Website (it’s a pain in the ass to have to find the information you are looking for, piece by piece, on the Website… a downloaded complete manual would be so much easier).

2. The cable from the scanner to computer is relatively short (a little less than 5 feet). That’s fine for hooking to my laptop that sits adjacent to the scanner, but doesn’t work for my laptops or PC that are at more distant workstations. It would be really nice if Canon provided a cable that is 2 – 3 time longer, or at least provided cable specifications so you could buy an appropriate longer cable (it’s apparently a “special” cable… you can’t just use a run-of-the-mill extension).

3. You can’t remove the scanner bed cover to facility scanning larger media. With my C6, you could take off the cover so you could scan large media like maps without having to fold (damage) the original. For me, this is the most serious downside to the LiDe 400, and is something Canon could have easily rectified with a different type of cover hinge.

4. Apparently doesn’t work with earlier version of Windows. I’d really like to use the scanner with my old XP desktop, because I have lots of really good XP-based image processing software. The work-around appears to be to buy VueScan drivers from Hamrick. That will be one of my next tasks.

As far as use, so far I have been reasonably satisfied with the Canon LiDe 400.

I used the front buttons to scan pages and create a pdf document, and it was a really simple and intuitive process. The Auto Scan front button made a decent copy of a photograph, but you can get much better photo scanning results (including higher resolutions than what “Auto Scan” provides) using the Twain compliant ScanGear software that is included.

ScanGear lets you do some limited image correction and post-processing. It’s OK, but the ULead PhotoImpact software that came with my Microtek SlimScan C6 was FAR more versatile. In particular, ScanGear has very limited options for descreening when scanning printed images (like newspaper or magazine articles, or some types of laser printed originals). I’m really hoping that when I install the VueScan drivers on my XP machine, I can interface the LiDe 400 with the much better PhotoImpact image processing software that I already have.

Overall… the Canon LiDe 400 scanner is a decent, inexpensive, basic-use flatbed scanner. For most people who just want to scan letter-size documents, or digitize a bunch of photographs with good resolution, this scanner will more than suffice.

FINAL NOTE: Like most inexpensive flatbed scanners, you are limited to original documents that are no more than 8.5 x 12 inches in size. Supposedly, there is a way to scan larger originals in pieces, and then “stitch together” the pieces to create a full-size digital product. I haven’t tried this feature, so I can’t tell you if it really works as advertised or not.

Original review: 15 June 2022. This review will be updated once the Hamrick VueScan drivers are installed, or if any problems with the scanner are subsequently found.

Works Great! I’ve scanned scores of photos using 600 dpi and am very pleased with the simplicity and results. Scanned a few documents with similar opinion.

EXTREME CAUTION: Access the Canon Website for Driver download and Product registration by typing ij.start.canon in the address bar and not into a browser search. I typed it into a Google Chrome search instead and came upon a Canon site for Driver download that unknowingly took me to ij.start.cannon (note the mispelling). This is a very legitimate looking Canon site. When I entered the scanner model I received an error code and a phone number to resolve the issue. The phone number took me to a third party called MS Assistance LLC, who told me that they represented Canon and that the error code meant that I could not download the driver because I had foreign ip addresses connected to my network. I believed them and paid them $100 to connect to my computer and fix the problem. They then downloaded the driver to my computer for me. Then they told me that I needed a product called Network Privacy Shield to protect me from foreign invaders in the future. I believed them and paid another $199.99 for the software that they downloaded for me while still tied to my computer. Days later, my sister told me that Canon would never operate this way and that I needed to call Canon. I called Canon and was told that they had no knowledge of this company MS Assistance or of the error message that I received. While on the phone, they directed me to type ij.start.canon into the address bar and that took me to the correct Canon webpage that had my driver to install AND product registration that I hadn’t even thought about before. Regarding the supposed Network issue, Canon told me to talk to my Internet provider. Charter-Spectrum
told me that I should NEVER allow anyone to connect to my computer over the phone and that who knows what files they could have stolen when connected. They said that I needed to take my laptop back to Apple to see if any malware or damage was done.
I have found that the software Network Privacy Shield is a Google Add-In available on the Google Store and it is made by driversandshield.com. I called driversandshield.com and asked a question about the legitimacy of their product Network Privacy Shield protecting against foreign IP addresses connecting to my computer network and then called MS Assistance at their phone number and asked the same
question and the person said that ‘I just talked to you and answered that question’. MS Assistance IS also driversandshield.com; the maker of Network Privacy Shield. They are one in the same. MS Assistance LLC operates out of an apartment in an apartment building in Austin TX and driversandshield.com supposedly operates out of an apartment in an apartment building in St Cloud MN.
Do you think this is a SCAM?

I needed a flatbed type portable scanner I could use with my laptop when away from home. This one seems to meet that need for me (I haven’t traveled with it yet).

Since I use Linux Mint, the Canon software wouldn’t work (shame on you, Canon, for not making Linux compatible drivers!), so I can’t comment on how well the scanner works with Canon’s software. I already use Hamrick’s VueScan software on my other two scanners, a Canon 9000F flatbed scanner, and a Fujitsu ix500 duplexing, ADF scanner (both of which are NOT what I would consider portable!) and it works well with this scanner once I updated it. I haven’t tried to use any of the scanners buttons since Vuescan easily and conveniently does it all from within the software.

When I first tried to use the scanner with Vuescan, I went nuts trying to get the software settings to work the way I needed. It then dawned on me that I hadn’t updated VueScan in quite a while since “nothing was broke so don’t fix it.” After I updated Vuescan (although the .deb version would probably work, the tarball—.tgz—version, when extracted, had a simple to use installer that automagically updated the current installation without changing the settings), everything started working perfectly.

Another reviewer reported getting good results with the free to use xsane.

The first time I used it, I noticed that it was hard to slide paper over the platen. I lightly moistened a microfiber cloth with water and gently wiped down the platen. After that, paper easily slides across the platten.

The stand for the scanner is a joke. Trying to position a document or whatever on the scanner while it is in the stand will be awkward at best. One will have to be really hard up for space to find it useful. I put mine in the drawer of items that will never see daylight again.

Also, my Canon 9000F uses the upper right corner has “home” for locating documents on the platen. The LiDE 400 uses the lower left corner as “home”. This will take a bit of getting used to.

Now for the pros and cons.

Pros:
1. Inexpensive
2. Compact for a flatbed scanner that can handle up to letter size documents.
3. Lightweight
4. Runs off USB power so no power cords needed. (Canon says USB 3.0 is necessary for this scanner but I was able to run it just fine off a USB 2.0 port on my laptop; your “mileage” may vary.)
5. When using VueScan and the settings have been sorted out, it’s easy to use.
6. Good quality scans.
7. 48″ long USB cable

Cons:
1. Anything being scanned must fit flat on the platen to be fully in focus, unlike my Canon 9000F which can focus on parts that may be as much as 1/2″ from its platen (for my intended use, that will not be a problem).
2. It’s noisier than my other scanners (not a big deal for me).
3. The lid is flimsy. This will be a problem when transporting the scanner since the lid won’t be able to protect the glass platen unless precautions are taken to protect them (I’ve ordered a larger laptop bag so I can safely carry the scanner in the same bag with my laptop).
4. The lock slide on the bottom is stiff to move. It has to be locked when transporting the scanner and unlocked when using it. Being on the bottom of the scanner, it will be easy to forget to reset it every time the scanner is transported and set up for use.
5. 48″ long USB cable (whether that is a pro or con will vary from person to person).

For me, the cons were not enough for me to remove any stars from the rating. It should perfectly meet my needs. I do a lot of scanning (including some hard to scan items) so I wouldn’t want to use this as my go-to flatbed scanner at home, especially since my old 9000F is still going strong but, for occasional use, the LiDE 400 should last me a long time.

BTW, the description is wrong; it’s 1.75″ x 9.875″ x 14.5″.

This is a solid product for the price. At 300DPI, it scans fairly efficiently and the quality is acceptable for archiving. At 600DPI, the machine operates at a reasonable speed as well; however, at 800DPI or 1200DPI the scan is painstakingly slow, taking minutes for even a polaroid size scan.

It works, it’s sleek, and it’s light. Easily portable as it only requires power from the USB port. I would recommend this for anyone wanting to just scan documents, photographs, or small art projects.

Does not scan negative films.

This is a solid product for the price. At 300DPI, it scans fairly efficiently and the quality is acceptable for archiving. At 600DPI, the machine operates at a reasonable speed as well; however, at 800DPI or 1200DPI the scan is painstakingly slow, taking minutes for even a polaroid size scan.

It works, it’s sleek, and it’s light. Easily portable as it only requires power from the USB port. I would recommend this for anyone wanting to just scan documents, photographs, or small art projects.

Does not scan negative films.

This is a solid product for the price. At 300DPI, it scans fairly efficiently and the quality is acceptable for archiving. At 600DPI, the machine operates at a reasonable speed as well; however, at 800DPI or 1200DPI the scan is painstakingly slow, taking minutes for even a polaroid size scan.

It works, it’s sleek, and it’s light. Easily portable as it only requires power from the USB port. I would recommend this for anyone wanting to just scan documents, photographs, or small art projects.

Does not scan negative films.

So I spent hours trying to make the software that came with the scanner work. Obviously the scanner hardware was functioning just fine, and was connected to my laptop, but the software could not recognize it no matter how many times I unplugged and replugged and rebooted and redownloaded. Eventually I came back to this amazon page and saw a user mention VueScan, a third party scanning software that works with this scanner. I cannot tell you the ABSOLUTE euphoria of finally seeing a scanned image with little to no setup or hardship! In order to get rid of the watermark, you have to pay ~$50 which is not ideal but is absolutely necessary to get the scanner to function. VueScan can get this scanner to do up to 4800 dpi, which is slow but the color quality is great.

So it’s a little more expensive than I initially thought and caused me a lot of frustration but I eventually got it to work at still a fairly low price for a full color photo scanner. Would recommend as long as you have an additional $50 dollars to spend.

I chose the LiDE 400 over its lesser siblings primarily for its stated optical resolution of 4800 pixels/inch, but the driver software will not allow me to access this capability. The WIA driver max is 600 dpi and the ScanGear App (TWAIN driver) maxes out at 1200 dpi. As a result, I see no real benefit to the LiDE 400 over the 300 so this is disappointing. At least I was able to enable 48 bits/pixel depth in the TWAIN driver. Be aware that the included USB cable is special (don’t lose it) and your USB port will have to source scanner power up to 0.9 Amps. All in all, it’s a decent, inexpensive scanner.

Context: I’m a computer kid. Grew up with them and I get how to troubleshoot any issues I’m having with it. Driver updates, reinstalls, firewall blocking, etc.

This scanner has great reviews despite the fact that there is a 12% (being the one star reviews) chance you receive a faulty one. Upon doing further research, I found that people have this same issue, though I did not take heed of those warnings before I bought it.

First issue— the machine was put together wrong. There is a fault in the manufacturing process with a large percentage of these models and somehow they’re still put out.

Second issue— it doesn’t work despite installing the drivers and ij scanning software. It says “printer is not on” or “printer not connected”. My computer recognizes there is a scanner plugged in so why can’t I scan? And there is NO on button for my model so why is that an error popping up?

I tried this on 2 different PC’s but to no avail. What is supposed to be a plug and play scanner turned out to be a giant paperweight and a pain in my rear.

I even called canon myself and they ran me through the same troubleshooting procedure and were dumbfounded that nothing worked. They were of no help, though tech support tried their best. I just don’t trust canon for scanners anymore. Especially since this scanner isn’t as sturdy as I would have hoped (provided it even worked to begin with)

If you get one that works, it comes with a stand though I don’t really see the need for it. Sure, may be a desk space saver though it really makes me worried that I wouldn’t get a completely flat scan, and it’s flimsy. I feel as though the scanner would tip over. This isn’t a major thing for it seeing as the most important part of this review is that— the machine doesn’t even work…

As to the other specs of this scanner I couldn’t say because that’s contingent on the machine actually working as it is supposed to…