Keith, its difficult choosing because I think the very slight difference in contrast is confusing, but if I had to plump for one or other the bottom is sharper.
But its the contrast of the scanner that can mask its underlying qualities, so I wouldn't give up on 35mm. Think of it like a cold cathode enlarger light source, it gives a much lower contrast overall, so it doesn't pick out grain in as harsh a way as a condenser enlarger ( the equivalent of a dedicated film scanner) does. So you are looking at the actual image rather than the reflected light off a significant thickness of grain in the emulsion.
This is what often makes people think their dedicated scanner is sharper, they are just looking at the sharp grain structure through the thickness of the emulsion. If one could diffuse the light on a dedicated film scanner you'd see a very, very similar image to the V700. In fact a diffuser made of opalescent plastic was available for the Minolta MultiPro to knock down its harsh grain enhancing light source. So the underlying structure of the image should be very close to a film scanner, its just that your're not going to get the grain delineated like a dedicated scanner. I've now sold my MultiPro, and it was a great scanner, but the best I could get from that is very close indeed (close enough not to worry) to the best I can get from my V700 using the same 35mm negative as comparison.
Steve
