The comments above are accurate - re: knowing the bodies, default approach to the image 'negative', spending more than two hrs with them etc.
That being said, bear in mind:
1. LLoyds site is not a haven for MF users.
2. Lloyds does do exceptional work reviewing, in real life (not just test chart work) 135 gear of many varieties
3. He doesn't pull punches, but he also doesn't shy away from changing his mind upon further use of an item - and doesn't make excuses for having made a rush to judgement or an error.
4. He did what any 135 user would do that was even vaguely interested in a MF system. Went in, was able to borrow two very different snack-bracket systems for a couple of hrs each, shot with them and notes his PERSONAL likes, dislikes and initial impressions. It was by far a real test and was never put forth as such. It was a simple, "Hey, I tried something different and FYI - here are my thoughts"
As for anyone making the go/no go purchase (or even should I test) decision on a $30K+ MF kit based on 1 users 2 hr walk-around-the-area test drive ......
4a This was also Hasselblad vs. Hasselblad, not someone with a Canon bias pulling a tantrum (how much of that @#$ do we see every day?) against Nikon or vise versa. " Based on my quick use, I liked the cheaper Hasselblad kit over the more costly one..." The problem here is...? If I sold H, I'd rather have a new owner of a CWD I could maybe upgrade to a H3DII later than no H owner at all.
For every 1 person reading the article who might now go into a shop biased against the H3D, there is also a person heading in expecting to LOVE the CWD. In short, there is someone going into a Hasselblad dealer. The rest is up to the sales staff.
5. I find, like I assume many do, that I either take to a new camera, car, etc., very quickly. He just didn't take to the H3 vs the CWD and told us why. Such is life.
6. IQ aside, there is also an immediate unconscious comparison taking place the moment anyone would put hands-on the kits in question: 'what does $20,000+ extra get you?". The question would be no different than if Jane Doe were trying a Canon 20D vs 1Ds3.
For most people (again IQ aside) laying hands on two cameras where #1 costs 3x that of #2, the more expensive unit is expected to knock YOUR personal socks off in terms of handling, viewfinder, AF (if present), ergonomics, etc. I mean, you are paying some of that premium for those features are you not?
If that 'wow momma!' moment doesn't hit YOU ASAP, the next sub-conscious bias will be: "... well the IQ had better not only be $30K good, but $30K+ the ergo/handling quirks I don't like good...". If that fails to make itself immediately apparent ....
7. The vendor, knowing the systems, should have explained what to expect in the differences in how the two units delivered. I get the impression they just handed him the two systems with a quick 'how to' and 'let him go play with them'. That's the kind of salesmanship that bites you in the $$$. Any work after the fact is now up-hill battle to overcome 'gut feel' biases you could have avoided. With Lloyd being a web reviewer, they should have been doubly diligent.
8. I'd rather see Lloyd published what he did than the usual unmitigated BS we see 90% of the time elsewhere: "Both systems were just soooo perfect. I mean, jeepers, it's like buying a Lexus vs. a Bentley, how could you go wrong. It depends on how you want to work, the format you want, dribble, dribble, bow, scrape, genuflect...."
In short, take the article for what it was -- and what it was presented as and be thankful you've got it at all.