> Almost sounds like the comparison Michael made between the Canon 1DS > and the Pentax 67 - no?
Jibe accepted, Bruce, but I still think there is one crucial difference: Michael admits his parameters, Rob Galbraith doesn't. That is, if Rob had said, "Many of these tests are of actions that are limited by the speed of the hard drive. We are comparing the Apple with the stock hard drives; Apple also makes faster hard drives available as an option," then who could object? But I see no mention of this. That's why I think it ends up being misleading. If you'll notice, several people here are objecting to Michael's conclusions. But this is because he has given sufficient honest explanation of his testing procedures and parameters to _allow_ people to draw different conclusions, or to critique his assumptions, or suggest possible shortcomings in his methods. That is the mark of a good test. --Mike
