The tone of your original post was in line with the answers you recieved. If you don't want to be insulted then don't be insulting about things you really do not understand. The line I quoted being a case in point.
The line you quoted was but a vestige of all the things that have been said by that same writer. He also said, "High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera,"
so I guess my real question is why didn't he try
to get the most out of the camera by conducting this test with high-end lenses? I believe this remains a valid question.
As a novice I wouldn't write a post showing my huge ignorance coloured with expletives, insults and accusations of lying, etc.
Thank you for telling me what "you" wouldn't do. Since I have no wish to be you, to put it politely, I am not worried about showing my ignorance here, as I am not thin-skinned nor am I sensitive about being ignorant of a subject in which I have only recently become interested. That is why I plainly stated "or am I missing something?" at the end of my post, so as to have you experts point out the things I am missing. So again, thank you to those who have done so.
When you own the lens and have done tests to show that it is an inferior lens within the canon lineup, when you have shown that cost is at all relative to sharpness (my 50mm Macro costs peanuts and is one of the sharpest canon lenses period), then possibly you can comment.
Well, genius, I guess that's the point. You see, I don't want to "own" either camera system until I am reasonably sure of which system is worth the investment. And I was not sure if the 50D was really going to be an improvement over the 40D either. I wanted to see some solid results first before making my decision. Based upon the reasons already set forth here, I just do not feel the results are very solid. In fact, one poster on DP Review said, "did they drop their 50mm, diff samples here: (I have) hand-held snapshots not even carefully carried taken and they see better than their studio shots ... maybe 50D doesn't have quite the per pixel of a 20D or 40D but the details BLOW AWAY the 20D and is clearly better than the 40D, their tests seem really weird. also why do they rag the 50D for losing detail from NR but when it was nikon doing that they soley praised it for getting low noise??"
So, again, I am not alone in a sense of dissatisfaction with their test ...
I was not commenting here as an expert at all, oh truly astute one, I was commenting precisely as someone wanting to read a definitive test result prior to
making my purchase decision. I don't want to buy first, then find out later. I was interested in seeing some definitive results, but I do not feel these test results are that.
Until then, especially with the manner you started this thread with, you've just made a laughing stock of yourself.
It's good to laugh, so I don't mind being a laughing stock
To me, you trying to insult my intelligence while misspelling the word "receive," and while using the word "with" twice in the same sentence, is funny
But neither my ignorance on camera issues, nor your poor use of the English language, is relevant to the subject. I don't mind you laughing at me, but I do mind being insulted. Again, I do not seem to be the only one dissatisfied with the test results and the methods used to obtain them. Perhaps many were simply hoping for more and voicing our disappointment, and that is all that is happening. Or, just perhaps, the whole test was a half-baked effort that really did leave alot to be desired.