I expressed my opinion in this tread quite sometime ago and stand by it. You chose to resurrect this discussion by directing your comment to me.
Yes, I did, because there was a rather significant point that wasn't addressed by other posters.
This is quite normal in a web forum discussion, on netnews, and even in more traditional media.
I do not presume to know any more or less than the other posters in this thread. What I do know is based on five years of experience with the Canon EOS 1Ds (the original, full frame, 11.1 megapixel) professional camera and a degree in Visual Communication.
Does this mean that you admit that your claims have certain technical weaknesses, or are you now claiming that this one-camera experience and degree makes you more qualified?
Perhaps you do not see it that way, but what you're suggesting goes against what Canon claims, as well as what other, experienced posters to this forum seem to understand as how the physics might work.
You have not put forward convincing evidence, yet you keep on claiming that you're right and others who put forward rather well-documented, contradicting evidence are wrong.
And do forgive me if I'm wrong, but Visual Communication does not appear to be an engineering or science degree, and is as such largely irrelevant to the technical issues at hand.