To me both are good, not expensive scanners, with good results and easy handling.
I'm not anal about resolution of film. And I like grain. It is organic, speaking of Huss and veggies
. I don't need huge prints.
I enjoy film cameras for simplicity of use and film for funky colors and BW tones. I'm just not stuck with film in 2020.
If for whatever reason I need accurate colors, huge resolution, no grain and large prints, I have no issues to use digital.
While both scanners are absolutely good for letter sized prints from 135 film and 120 film scans from Epson are awesome on larger prints.
I guess I'm just tired of
that being the predominant story with film, told to the public at large, and passed on internally in film circles as raison d'être of film.
IE that it's kooky/whimsical, "organic" (whatever that means to different people), "authentic", "slows you down" etc. and a whole host of other hand wavy, fey terms.
I'm absolutely not against any of "that", and have some of "it" as personal secondary or third reasons to shoot film, as ephemeral and vague as they may be.
It's very important however to communicate clearly and soundly that film is absolutely not primarily "that".
It might be to some, I'd say a vocal minority (not that the size really matters), but the vast majority of the greatest photos ever taken was captured in film, and is as technically and artistically impressive as ever.
There is no reason why that shouldn't continue.
It's also very hard to see a sustained interest in film, with the investment in time and money necessary, if the "sales pitch" is so easy to shoot down (you can just
simulate the "crappyness" and save the money, seems to be one of the popular notions) and is based on such vague and subjective notions.
Bad scanners such as the the above mentioned help to spread those notions, of film as a quaint far secondary circus horse that can be pulled into the ring once in a while for a laugh.
Film was, is and will be for a very long time (until something fundamental changes) the vastly superior image sensor, in most of the important ways.
Bad scanners make a mockery out of the decades of research and production expertise that has been put into film.
I fear people won't truly understand until they see a direct A/B comparison of some of their own work, between a flatbed or early two thousands technology consumer based scanner, compared to quality stuff from either a DSLR scan or one of the unoptanium scanners.
Unfortunately that will happen very rarely for most film shooters.
Resolution over what a flatbed offers is not a luxury or redundant. You
will be able to see the difference, even on a standard 8x10 print. And it's not just something technical for the resident Asperger in all of us to geek out over. Resolution has real emotional significance and importance in an image.
To take something easy to put into words: It can mean the difference between recognising a face and only seeing a smudge. But of course there is much more to the importance of resolution than just being able to tell "what's in the image".