In small scanners light and lens / line sensor are linked and move together.
I am 99% certain Minolta uses the same architecture. I had a 5400 II but I never opened it, so I won’t put my hand in fire over that.
In medium format Nikons it is the opposite — the LED, the lens and the line sensor are static while the film tray moves. This I can send you a video if you are interested.
Regarding the lenses — line scanning is still an on going thing in quality checking and similar stuff. There is a guy who does a great job writing and testing line scan, macro etc lenses.
https://www.closeuphotography.com/lenses
What you can take from his tests is that a SIGMA MACRO 70mm F2.8 EX will come damn close to the best industrial lenses while it has auto focus and no mounting adventures. I am positive you can not notice a difference (at regular viewing) between line scan lenses at Sigma when applied to scanning. But hey, you gotta love your lens, so whatever rocks our boats, right? 
The bigger difference in scanner / DSLR is the colaminated light in scanners vs. duffused in DSLR. This makes the grain slightly less contrasty in DSLR scanns. But again this is pure pixel peeping.
The other is film flattnes that will get troublesome without glass in MF especially in scanners. When adding glass you are adding 2 surface per one piece. This means that with 2 glasses you have 6 surfaces for dust to stick on! Now this is when ICE really comes showing its use. I simple leave the scanner working while I do other stuff and the scans come out clean. With DSL I spend about an hour preparing them (cleaning, inverting etc).
And the dust has to be retouched no matter the size of the print. Oh right - for extremely small prints it perhaps isn’t necessary.
Thank you for the nice debate and best of luck with your work!