QTR-Quadtone RIP

In the sub-$1000 range, it's pretty much the Epson V800 if you want medium format. They do a very good job - noticeably less sharp than the Plustek only if you look at individual pixels at 2400 dpi or above. The Epson will have a little less contrast (or a little more flare) as well. But its price/performance is as good as you can get with currently-produced machines.

Depending on the photo equipment you have, *copying* negatives with a digital camera is a good option than need not be thought of as a stop-gap measure.  It can be much faster than any scanner and/or can produce results that are as good as anyone could want.

Because I have long had a darkroom, I have a 4x5 "cold light" head (even illumination), a variety of negative carriers for a 4x5 enlarger (holding negatives and masking off light around the image), and a "copy stand" made from an electric-drill-holding drill press stand.  The cold light head sits flat on the copy stand base (light diffuser up), the negative carrier sits on top of that, and a Nikon D800 with a macro lens is attached to the copy stand upright.  I use a tripod head leveller to square up the negative and camera. (Slide the camera carrier down until the front of the lens touches the negative carrier, and then use the leveller to make the lens sit flat/square on the lens board.) Because I only have B&W negatives, colour balance of the light source is not an issue for me. For best result I copy 6x6 negatives in two pieces and stitch the result together. (This may or may not be necessary for my TMY and Tri-X Pro negatives ultimately printed on paper no wider than 17 inches.)

I suspect that name-brand macro lenses are at least as good as the optics on Epson and Chinese scanners, and the dynamic range of DSLRs is *way* more than is needed to copy any printable film negative.

Myron