Opinions on IQsmart2 vs. 3

[Ari]

...I am a hobbyist shooter on 120, mostly b/w negatives...

I'd just stick with the Epson.

IQSmart scanners are fantastic, yes. They're also large and heavy, they need lots of desk space and a separate computer station.
If you were shooting sheet film nearly every day for work, I'd get the Creo, but getting one just for kicks?

For 20x20 at 6 feet you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between a Creo and an Epson.
I'm like you. If I read about a product enough, I'll convince myself that I not only need it, but can't work without it.

[SergeyT]

By applying that kind of logic we all should take pictures with nothing larger than a 135 format camera
One can easily meet the "20x20 at 6 feet" requirement with just that kind of picture taking equipment and film

[theHUN]

To be fair, it would not be the first time I am suffering from GAS. Perhaps the Creo is completely overkill for what I currently do 90% of the time. But I also remember a time when film had been eliminated from my medium format road map. Then the pandemic hit, and I decided against the Phase One body, giving film an honest chance. I have since then embraced it fully: kissed lab scans goodbye, started developing my own BW film soon after. I am now wondering what a Creo scanner would enable.

I am also aware of the size of the Creo, the dedicated computer, and obviously its price. I think seeing the resulting scan and print would allow me to make a more informed decision.

[Ari]

By applying that kind of logic we all should take pictures with nothing larger than a 135 format camera
One can easily meet the "20x20 at 6 feet" requirement with just that kind of picture taking equipment and film

Not at all, Sergey. I owned a Creo for many years. The quality is stunning, but considering how much more money it costs, how much room it takes up as well as the cost of other peripherals, the increase in quality doesn't justify it for a hobbyist shooting 120.
An 8x10 shooter, putting out 3-10 sheets/week, pro or hobbyist, would get more out of the Creo. Ditto someone shooting ULF up to 12x17". Then the difference between Creo and Epson becomes more apparent.
HUN is free to get anything he likes, of course, but the difference in these two scanners for occasional medium-format use will be negligible.
I think we should always use the best tools available to us and to our budgets, but we should also be aware when those tools serve us and when they don't.

To be fair, it would not be the first time I am suffering from GAS. Perhaps the Creo is completely overkill for what I currently do 90% of the time. But I also remember a time when film had been eliminated from my medium format road map. Then the pandemic hit, and I decided against the Phase One body, giving film an honest chance. I have since then embraced it fully: kissed lab scans goodbye, started developing my own BW film soon after. I am now wondering what a Creo scanner would enable.

I am also aware of the size of the Creo, the dedicated computer, and obviously its price. I think seeing the resulting scan and print would allow me to make a more informed decision.

It's definitely an amazing scanner, capable of exceptional scans.
But you'll be working harder, paying more and have less space - for only a sight increase in perceived quality for you.
You're right: get hold of a scan, the Creo will be amazing. But for your current needs, it won't matter much which scanner you use.

[interneg]

By applying that kind of logic we all should take pictures with nothing larger than a 135 format camera
One can easily meet the "20x20 at 6 feet" requirement with just that kind of picture taking equipment and film

I think a lot of people's visual perceptions of distance are pretty distorted - they're generally going to be viewing a 20x20" print a fair bit closer than 6ft. If people find that they aren't getting dramatically obviously better quality out of a high end flatbed than an Epson, then there's very fundamental issues elsewhere in their imaging chain that need to be addressed.

[EH21]

I think if you go for the IQsmart then you should get the 3 and not the 2. Go all the way or not at all. I have the IQSmart3 and it's a pretty nice machine. I used to scan 120 with an ixpress CF 528 microstep back using an apo rodagon enlarging lens and Rollei 6008AF. This set up could best the IQsmart3 in terms of IQ when perfectly focused and everything was right, but hey I can put 4 rolls of 120 in the iqsmart and let it run and never have to fiddle.