And I did try a number of Nikon and Minolta scanners nearly went for a Minolta 5400 II Elite very nice scanner but I got scared off by both Nikon and Minolta leaving the scanner business (spare parts etc) Thus I think Plustek have a nice little market to themselves (almost) They don't use ICE either which might sound a con but you can use IRSRD with Kodachrome where ICE can have problems. So on balance I think Plustek can punch up fairly near to the guys who have now departed the scene..and also at a pretty good/fair outlay for a scanner. I def think they provide a better output for 35mm scans than a V700/V750 but of course if you scan larger formats the choice is already made for you.
For 35mm I use the Nikon 8000. Often in the normal two strip film holder, in some cases wet mounted when the strips are too curved over the width. Its resolving power comes near the Nikon claimed resolution of 4000 PPI. The same scanner is used for MF on the wet mount holder. Sometimes with thin negatives I switch to the V700 + wet mounting. Any film size above that on the V700 and my graphic film to digital conversions were done on the different A3 scanners I had in time.
There are good tests of the V700 and V750 models. iPhoto has one and the forum discussion adds to the review. Going way more in depth than what this review and the comments on it show.
The Minolta 5400 II Elite with the optional Scanhancer light diffusor most likely is the 35mm scanner to beat, resolution wise. For all Nikons, Imacons, Plusteks, Canons, Epsons around.
Where I used "ICE" it was more as a generic term for infrared hardware + the software to create a dust and scratch mask. With wet mounting I use it sporadically and then only in its mildest setting. I use the Vuescan variant then.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm