>>2576448Okay so you have trouble reading, and I'll use small words:
If detail is important to you, don't shoot 35mm film.
You should be focusing on dynamic range and the scanner's abilities with dense strips, speed and convenience of the scanning process, software usability, your computer's compatibility, etc.
No matter what scanner you get, you won't notice an enormous jump in detail over a shit level flatbed because the detail just isn't there in the film, because of the physical limitations of the medium.
>even something relatively weak like a v700 gets you all the pixels you could reasonably want, and a resolution close to the maximum possible with almost all 4x5 lensesNo. You lose the same amount of detail on a large image as you do on a 35mm one. The difference is, there is so much more information on the negative in the first place that it resolves out much more nicely after down-sampling.
>f you use the same scanner on well exposed 35mm film, you're missing a lot of the information put on the film by a good lens.The information left on the negative is the same. The difference is the true physical resolution of the strip of film is much less, so there's not nearly as much down-sampling to do to try to recover the visual illusion of detail.
