I'll let others do the recommending and I hope you realize that most people will have a strong and biased opinion on what's the best. You're going to have to decide what's best for you. I bought the Polaroid SprintScan 120. It had good reviews and it was available for purchase, while the Nikon seemed to exist only as vaporware at that time.
A big difference between the Nikon and Polaroid scanners is that the Nikon has an infrared channel that removes dust while the Polaroid doesn't. Nikon users like to brag about that feature and insist that they would never buy a scanner without it. What they don't acknowledge is the fact that the Nikon needs the feature, while the Polaroid doesn't. You see, the LED light source that Nikon uses seems to exaggerate dust while the more diffuse light source used by Polaroid doesn't. The Nikon dust removing feature also tends to blur the image. So, if you normally store your film on the floor of a well traveled hallway, then the Nikon is better. If you take care of your film, the Polaroid is better. It's your choice. Keep in mind that the infrared channel doesn't work with black and white film or with Kodachrome.
I don't know anything about the Minolta other than I understand that it has much less resolution than do the 4000 ppi Nikon and Polaroid. It can be argued that you don't need 4000 ppi in a medium format scanner unless you make big enlargements or do a lot of cropping. My attitude is that "too many pixels are never enough."
Good luck on your decision.
In a message dated 10/29/2001 1:26:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, Bill@grimwood.net writes:
I am going to purchase a new medium format and 35mm scanner and am not up on
what is available. Would you recommend the Polaroid, the Nikon or Minolta
or something else?