I'm fairly surprised that there has been no response to this from the piece's author. I am not being vituperous - I (used to?) love AP, and have read it since the early 60s.

However, it does seem to be a fairly serious issue, bearing in mind the public apology for the 1% error in the review, a matter of no significance whatsoever. I wonder what Geoffrey Crawley would think of it? I have read no complimentary comments about the camera comparisons, which generally vary within the range of, at most, 3%.

I admit that I am on the Olympus forum. However, I am not biassed - I have a Canon EOS 1DS Mark II, complete with around Ł6000 of superb lenses; two, admittedly, by Tamron - wish they made Oly fitting! Do I take it out and about with me - no! It is too heavy. Do I photograph school plays with it? No - it is too loud, and I can give a couple of boys a Canon and my Oly to take some shots, with my big Canon on a tripod on the balcony (still produces great shots). An $800 silencer is used, but with difficulty. I also, responsible for school photography budget, have bought nothing but Canons. To be honest, Nikon would have been as good, but I have all these Canon lenses ... Anyone remember the "Tamron adaptall"? Probably too complex these days, and I still wish that Tamron do Oly fittings.

It is these things which will help me decide on a camera. I use the Oly E520 almost all the time, because it is quiet, quick and light. However, for our rugby tournament the Canon is infinitely better.

This is what I want to read. Not that one camera is 1% or 2% 'better' than another, by arbitrary and subjective criteria, and it does worry me that a technical expert (and the technical team, as apparently serious discussion was involved), sees it as so significant as to require a public apology.

Surely we want to know what is good about particular cameras, without always "comparing them". In an absolute sense - unless the marks vary between 50 and 100%, rather than 80 and 86 - they can't be compared ...