I have been using a Nikon 9000 for 120/220, in parallel with an Imacon Precision III for 4*5 slides.
I have never done a rigorous comparison between the 2 scanning 120/220, but I feel that the Imacon is significantly sharper (and it is said to be in the same class as the Creo). When you get the colors right (see below), I feel that the files do lend themselves to more manipulations than the coolscan files do.
However:
- dust removing on the Imacon can be a nightmare, while ICE does a perfect job every time on the Nikon,
- I find it a lot more difficult to get good colors with the Imacon driver (Flexcolor), and I do now scan a reference Provia 100F chart at the beginning of each scanning session for callibration purpose... pretty annoying but it works fine,
- the Imacon is also a lot slower than the Nikon, but this has been improved with the 646 and 848 it seems (although these are much more expensive, and almost impossible to find second hand).
Now, both the Nikon and the Creo do probably require wet mounting to get the best out of the slides. I have never bothered doing it on the Nikon, and don't think that I would have the patience to do it on the Creo either. The Imacon doesn't require wet mounting for best quality, which is one of its main strenghts.
Another problem with the Nikon is that it cannot scan larger than 6*9 at once... this forces me to scan my 6*12 slides on the Imacon.
Regards,
Bernard