Oh well, I knew good things don't last...
Looking at the brighter side, I noticed this long comment from "Rob" in Adiós DSLR!, a September 2014 post.
I love the way he express his dissatisfaction with my "test"...
"This is the most biased review I have ever read. Never mind that you're comparing a 1 year old pano with upgraded glass that's arguably the best pee-wee you can get, to a 5 year old mid-range nikon with a bargain-box lens. Despite all this you failed to note the colour depth in the nikon being far superior to the pano, and there's at least 10m difference of effective shooting distance in your "Sharpness Test"... Whether it was the zoom or the standing position it still skews the outcome.
Don't get me wrong. I agree that there's way too many people in the world lugging around slr's they really don't need to. But to try and give the impression that a pee-wee is better than an SLR is preposterous.
"review" blogs like yours are half of the reason it was so hard to make someone buy the correct camera for their needs when I sold them for a living. Because people who don't know any better read this drivel and actually believe it....
you want to do this test for real? try using two cameras that were actually built in the same generation of digital technology for a start. The GM1 is an impressive camera for what it is, but it isn't better than an EQUIVALENT D-SLR, and it never will be. Stop talking garbage."
The cameras that started Rob's comment, on the left, in Rob's words, the "PANO PEE-WEE" and right, my 5 year old Nikon D300 with a "BARGAIN-BOX" lens.
In reality the small "Pee-Wee" was my feather weight Lumix GM1 with the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4 ASPH LUMIX G VARIO ultra wide zoom.
The 5 year old Nikon was once the Camera Of The Year, the zoom lens was a Nikon 12-24mm f/4 AF-S DX, an expensive highly praised and reviewed ultra wide zoom; never in the "Bargain Box"!
