As for scanning, I am not pleased with my Epson 4490 (actually even worst than that, but that will be another post elsewhere in one of the subforums) + 35mm negatives, but that's just me; however medium format negatives give pretty good results and I am pleased that I can expect comparable output with the Xpan.
Actually I am not sure that you can expect comparable output. The problem with this kind of comparison is that you're comparing different image formats. You can't compare scanning quality directly between panoramics and normal negatives.
Let's assume, say, that you're happy with an 8x10" printout from a MF negative scan, but unhappy with an 8x10" printout from a 35mm negative scan. OK. Now you start scanning panoramics. How do you plan to print them? The XPan's negative doesn't contain any more information than a 35mm negative. Technically it
is a 35mm negative, it's only wider. If you normally print 8x10"s, you will want to print the panoramic, say, at 8x16" or something - people normally print panoramics at roughly the same size as non-panoramics, only wider, because that's the whole point of panoramics. Resolution-wise, it means that in practice you end up with more or less the same scan quality as a 35mm scan, only your picture is wider. Because the net print size is usually bigger for panoramics, the resolution challenge scales up, not down. In other words: if you're unhappy with 35mm output on 8x10", you'll be unhappy with XPan output at 16x10", too.
The only way you can be happy with your XPan output is if you print your panoramics rather small, such as 5x10". But if you're happy with small pictures, your scanner should do the job already; I would expect 4x5"s from 35mm to look quite decent unless there is a process problem with your scanning. And if 4x5"s from 35mm look bad, a 5x10" XPan panoramic won't look any better.
Philipp
