The Epson along with Vuescan as the front end allows you to set up profiles which you can use as first previews & starting points & allow you to experiment with your scans & the freedom to fashion your own vision of what the final image will be. As Ansel Adams said, "The Negative is the score, The Print is the performance." Ansel tries to promote the individual expression of what he is feeling, not just a replication of the object through the lens. That way, I craft each image in Photoshop by building the scene as I desire, not the scanner's. I tend to want lower contrast & more details. Here's why, I can control the scan to get all the details I want. It "looks good" right from the scanner, if you don't want to make individual interventions. The Nikons are superior if you want a very high contrast scan. Here's my take the Minolta is fine, but very average. In the past year I have experimented with 4 scanners, The Nikon 5000 & 9000, the Minolta & the Epson 700 & 750. It is very important to have a true understanding of the kind of scan you want & what role the post processing plays. "Stefan, I went through the same process. There is no "best" solution, only one that works for you & your needs & budget. Here's my response in the "Which Scanner" thread in this forum section.
You can find a number of threads that detail people's impressions. It will be fine with 35mm, just slower than the V or 5000.
If you shoot MF too and can afford it, get a 9000 or 8000. Those prices would guide my decision if I was looking at them now. I bought my V new for $600 or $650, while the 5000 was selling new for $1050-1100. If the price differential isn't that much between the V and 5000, just get the 5000. If you are shooting just 35mm, go with the V, the 5000, or the 4000. Of course, if you are only making small prints, that increase of detail won't get you much, but it is there. The 80 should scan up to 4000 dpi on MF, at the same level of detail that the V/5000 does 35mm, so you should see a significant increase in quality over the V700. I'm not sure on what the other differences are between the 8000 and the 9000. I think the 9000 does not have this problem. I recall something about banding sometimes on the 8000, which could be avoided if you went to 1-line capture mode on the CCD, which slows it down. The 9000 has an improved ICE function over the other scanners that is supposed to be better on Kodachrome. More importantly they allow you to scan MF. The 80 have more diffused light sources which will reduce the appearance of grain by some amount. In my mind, the only real reason to get the 5000 instead of the V is the ability to use roll adapters, whose usefulness is somewhat over blown. The 5000 is basically a slightly upgraded 4000, with 16 bit converters (makes very little difference), the ability to do multipass, and most importantly, twice as fast as the V. The V is basically a rebadged 4000, without the ability to use the roll adapters. From what I've seen, the Nikon V, 4000, 5000, 8000, and 9000 will give you basically the same image.