The dpi numbers in scanner manufacturer's documents should be interpreted as SPI numbers, samples per inch and not as PPI pixels per inch or any other unit that suggests information content per inch. In practice the best information per inch in the image can still be the result of using the highest SPI setting. Epson's oversampling in film scanning does help on noise reduction/dynamic range, the user can still resample to a lower PPI resolution afterwards with the right resampling algorithms. Not comparable with drum scanners the prosumer flatbed models like the V700-V750 can deliver nice scans of MF to 4x5 film sizes. If used with wet mounting, film clinged to the underside of for example the Betterscanning wet mount holder, image emulsion towards the sensor, the holder tweaked for best focus and the scanner driven by Vuescan with appropriate settings. "RAW"export, ACR deconvolution sharpening etc helps too. For that matter I think that the lens design in this type of flatbed scanners is actually hitting diffraction on purpose to create a more equal sharpness over the scan width. It asks for some devotion but I often prefer that scanner above the Nikon 8000 that I tweaked in similar ways but tends to exaggerate film grain and overexpose shadow detail in B&W negatives. These days I only use its green LEDS when scanning B&W negatives. The Nikon's SPI versus usable PPI is more correct though, Image Engineering thinks it can deliver 3800 PPI resolution and they used it as intended :-) Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst