I did a lot of testing of scanners last year, and was never completely satisfied with using a flatbed for 120mm film (I would never use it for 35mm except for web use), although I have one pro friend who has done some very large display prints from scans he did on an older Epson 2450 (I was looking into the newer version of that, the 3250). Since I don't shoot 4x5, I decided to get a dedicated film scanner like the Nikon 8000 (which has now been replaced by the 9000). I already have an older Nikon Coolscan 3, which does a pretty good job, but only gives you a 26mb file (about 9x12 @ 300dpi) and I would like scans that I can actually send to clients for reproduction. Then only other similar scanners I'm aware of is the Microtek ArtixScan 120TF, and the Minolta DiMage something - it seems to be missing from the B&H and Unique websites, so it may not be available. The Nikon and the Microtek run about $2000 and $1600 respectively. Also, remember that a 25mb scan is not the same as 25mb digital capture. The digital capture has more potential for up-resing images to larger sizes than does the scan file.
On the other hand, if you were only using the scanner for website use, or smaller reproductions, I'm sure the flat-beds with the light-lids for scanning film would be quite acceptable. You could also send your film to more professional scanning sources. This one has been around for a long time and I've heard good things about them.
http://nancyscans.com
By way of example, my
Bikini Gold 2004 calendar was completely scanned on a Nikon 8000 from 35mm film. My new
Bikini Gold 2005 calendar was scanned on a drum scanner in Korea (they do good work). I defy anyone to tell the difference (not from my web images however, you'll have to buy them both or catch me at one of Rolando's workshops
).
Regards,
Andy Pearlman
Andy Pearlman Studio