"Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've consistently heard that it isn't as good as the LS-2000, and some
sample
> scans I've seen appear to support this.  Specifically, it appears to have
a
> smaller dynamic range.

Anthony, can I ask *where* you've "consistently heard" this?  What I've read
in
this group has been the opposite, hence my surprise.

Rob


Reply via email to