Mike, The same could be said for the PC's. What he is comparing is what he has and uses. I don't see much, if any difference. Only that you like Macs and I like 67's. Both made a real world test that measured the things that they do and use. As such, both are valid tests. Neither test is necessarily indicative of the best that can be offered. That is the weakness to tests - they can be devised to show just about whatever you want.
Simple example - I repeatedly hear people compare their 35mm blowups 11X14+ to Medium Format favorably. I shoot both and they don't compare. But one could make that comparison by stacking the deck so to speak. The same holds true with digital vs MF and PC's vs Mac. Bruce Saturday, January 25, 2003, 11:58:45 AM, you wrote: >> Almost sounds like the comparison Michael made between the Canon 1DS >> and the Pentax 67 - no? MJ> Jibe accepted, Bruce, but I still think there is one crucial difference: MJ> Michael admits his parameters, Rob Galbraith doesn't. MJ> That is, if Rob had said, "Many of these tests are of actions that are MJ> limited by the speed of the hard drive. We are comparing the Apple with the MJ> stock hard drives; Apple also makes faster hard drives available as an MJ> option," then who could object? MJ> But I see no mention of this. That's why I think it ends up being MJ> misleading. MJ> If you'll notice, several people here are objecting to Michael's MJ> conclusions. But this is because he has given sufficient honest explanation MJ> of his testing procedures and parameters to _allow_ people to draw different MJ> conclusions, or to critique his assumptions, or suggest possible MJ> shortcomings in his methods. That is the mark of a good test. MJ> --Mike
