There's a link to a post where a DPReview patron posted the e-mail she'd sent to AH. I think it's pretty well written.
That would be me folks - (he not she) and Peter (Dir of Photography at AH) and I had a heated discussion about this over there.
It's obvious that AH doesn't want thousands of submissions from people with point and shoot digicams and that the article was likely intended to discourage that. In so doing, Peter made numerous blunders and errors and as anyone who has read it and has a clue about professional use of digital equipment can attest, painted a highly biased and technically incorrect picture of both the capabilities and limitations of digital technology.
I admonished him for comparing an eight bit file from a 1DS to a 48 bit scan from MF film and for suggesting that people "backup" their digital files with film (shoot dual images) and for generally misleading the readers. He was highly insulted and the resulting threads degenerated as both knowledgeable and un-knowledgeable contributors began responding.
In essence his original intent was directed at a very unsophisticated audience and raised the ire of all who have a clue about the current state of digital capabilities and limitations.
To make a long story short, it was an ill conceived article which resulted in a huge landslide of emails to AH and a loss of respect for their management for not correcting the errors by many of us who make our livings with digital equipment.
In no way does this imply that AH is not a class magazine or that they have less that wonderful images by a team of great photographers. I've been a reader of AH for over 50 years and my family was reading it 20 years before I read my first copy! By all appearances, they simply have a strong film bias and they have every right to that opinion. On the other hand, they were strongly criticized for publishing this "tripe" on their web and rightly so in my opinion.