I doubt if your slides are Kodachrome, but if some are, I remember once reading that to do justice to Kodachrome, the scanner must be specifically designed to scan slides. This has to do with Kodachrome's much thicker image left on the film substrate.

Here's a real-world example of what you can expect from a decent flatbed scanner.

From a 6x7 transparency with a 3 year old, $400 Epson 4990 Pro - (raw scan except for a bit of post sharpening):

100% Crop

Full Image

No doubt if money were no object, I could wring out a better image with a more expensive scanner but IMO, this example is far from the abysmal results some would have you believe all flatbed scanners will produce. In no way whatsoever does this image look "soft" when printed - even at 13"x19". (Actually, it makes a fairly gorgeous print.)

On a side note - there's something you need to know about some photographers when they get together and discuss digital image quality. They like to take an image and view it on-screen at 100% (and beyond) sizes and pick apart the tiniest flaws - flaws that will NEVER-EVER show in actual use (i.e., a print or web). There's even a name for it - "pixel-peeping". It's even worse when a "comparison" is made (like between scanners). While one may crowned "better" because it produces a minutely sharper scan evident at 100% on-screen, the reality is that in many cases, in real-world usage, there's absolutely no perceivable difference! It makes for an interesting discussion and may provide ammunition for bragging rights, but IMO, they'd be better off spending the time creating images or making prints or something.

And yes, I admit I'm guilty of it at times. "Hi, I'm Phil and I'm a pixel peeper".

Good luck with your search.

I agree with the CanoScan 9950f. It is superb! I've made thousands of scans with it and haven't had one single problem.