Cameralabs gives A700 87 pts. and 40D 90 pts.

[Akio Morita]

Does anyone know, who stand behind these "test" websites? Cameralabs is owned and operated by a girl named Rabin, who started CamcorderInfo, when she was a young girl. Then, with her marketing skills, she expanded to many websites. She used to wanted me to write for her site, but noted that she pays by the word and her pay is very low. I naturally declined. Video pros used to make fun of her conclusions. Now she is an expert on DSLR's.

[Akio Morita]

Another important factor that is being ignored by the reviewers is that Canon is 1.6 and Sony 1.5 crop factor. It makes a significant difference at wide angle lenses. 28 mm lens on the Sony = 30 mm on the Canon!

Add Sony's SSS for all lenses:
85 mm lens: On Canon you'll need F1.4 for same lowlight performance as with Sony's F4.0.

So Sony is actually at least couple generations ahead of Conon. Canon is by Sony's standard an outdated camera! Even its LCD is outdated!

These are the important points!

If Sony gets 87 points on Robin Liss' Cameralabs site, then The Canon, a big advertiser there, should get no more than 33 points!

I guess as long as you keep the grease-line going, which include advertising at the right spots, keep on nominating the reviewers for Man-of-The-Year awards, keep some of the forum owners on their payroll, by inviting them to work in your booth at a show, and pay them very well for it, you get great reviews. Canon regularly invites Chris Hurd of DVinfo.net to work in their booth - and the site is totally pro-Canon!

[Omega892]

And there is not a Sony Alpha to be seen at the moment in our local JessCanikonops.

Not a surprise as the gaffer in there once told me that C**** insist on at least one third of the display space and probably support that too.

It is a disgrace the way the market has been rigged for years.

Some years back, as I was getting back into photography, (I jumped from an SRT101 to a Dynax7 after a short flirt with an X700, a model the brochure of which I recall drooling over back in 1982 but being a mature student on a degree course could not afford) I took out a subscription to a new photo monthly but became slowly disenchanted by its vendor bias as evident by the serial 'Competition Sponsor' which happened to be the same as many other news-stand photo mag’s.

[Greg Beetham]

And there is not a Sony Alpha to be seen at the moment in our local JessCanikonops.

Not a surprise as the gaffer in there once told me that C**** insist on at least one third of the display space and probably support that too.

It is a disgrace the way the market has been rigged for years.

Some years back, as I was getting back into photography, (I jumped from an SRT101 to a Dynax7 after a short flirt with an X700, a model the brochure of which I recall drooling over back in 1982 but being a mature student on a degree course could not afford) I took out a subscription to a new photo monthly but became slowly disenchanted by its vendor bias as evident by the serial 'Competition Sponsor' which happened to be the same as many other news-stand photo mag’s.

I remember those wonderful Minolta brochures, just oozing with camera-ness, you could almost taste it. I still have a few, X700, MD lenses, and some later ones, the models of which I don't remember at the moment, 7Xi is one I think.
Anyway I do remember, like you, being cheesed with reviewers over the years, (not that I ever had some foaming at the mouth brand religion, I loved all cameras, Minolta was just my fav, but reviewers have a responsibility to be accurate and put things in context) it didn't seem to matter what it was, if it was some innovation that appeared on a Nikon or a Canon that originally came from Minolta, it was suddenly a wonderful invention.... almost to the point of, "why didn't someone think of this before", grrrr!
Yes, I do know where you're coming from.
Greg