I know I've said this before, but here goes again. Raymebaby put it exactly right: I quote from the correction to the original article:

(Olympus E-520 85% and the E-420 83% (not the 86% and 84% printed in the magazine).

He put it better than I could ever do. What on earth difference does 1% make? It is statistically insignificant, and it worries me that a technical expert can write that in, as raymebaby says, what is to an extent a subjective test; and a full apology on this forum as well. Is there a case for avoiding these ridiculous percentages, which always seem to be within two or three of each other, and just list the notable good and bad points of each camera, and who they might be meant for? I admit I haven't used a Canon 450, but have two school 400s. It is horses for courses: the Oly gives superb results, but need more work than the Canon. Two boys at my school photographed a school play (swapping cameras halfway through) in a dark hall using a 400D and a 520. The Canon ones were good, but everyone loves the Olympus ones. What about mention of weight, lens availability - for example, Oly only allow Sigma in the reasonably-priced range, whereas there are hundreds for Canon, including the superb Tamron.

I know that this information may be in the article, but people are often influenced by scores.

I've been a subscriber for many years, but these one or two percent differences are really making me think.

Incidentally, the camera I take on holiday with me is the Olympus.