Another opportunity lost when neither side understands the other, and so chooses to interpret what he doesn't understand as a personal insult. Remember, folks: the interwebs does not have non-verbal cues (facial expression, tone of voice, thoughtful sip of beer) to help with context. Try to be generous in your parsing and interpretation of the words from the other end of the tube.
How dare you say such a thing! Clearly you are an idiot! (note to moderators, this is what is called being facetious)
On an only slightly more serious note, after following this thread through page after page, I find nothing that would make me change my earlier opinion. People use personal, subjective results to support blanket statements masquerading as facts.
Mr. Agar is clearly a very successful photographer. I don't know of many photographers who pull down more than $300,000 a year, which is what he indicated he is earning. And, yes, in my book, that does warrant some consideration and respect.
On the other hand, I refer again to the parallel post discussing Zach Arias' amusing rant http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21991.msg419168#msg419168 on sensor size. I suspect that Mr. Arias might be close or even exceed Mr. Agar in income, so here we have two highly successful photographers who appear to have reached nearly opposite conclusions.
I have to say that in my experience (subjective observation acknowledged) from reading articles by commercially successful photographers, the bulk seem to fall more on Mr. Arias' side than on Mr. Agar's – that is, most tend to write that the differences between brands and formats are marginal.
I don't doubt that Mr. Agar made his decision to switch systems after carefully considering what was better for him. I simply doubt that his personal decision can then be transformed into a blanket and objective assessment of the overall quality of either Nikon or Canon products.
As was discussed earlier, confirmation bias is a powerful thing and we are all slaves to it.
On a much more random note, I am fascinated by the shadow pattern that Mr. Agar showed in that model's arm. I've never seen anything quite like that and I notice that it seems to appear throughout the image in the shadows. It's very bizarre and since I have no experience with it in my own photographs (which certainly have their share of shadow areas) I can't venture a guess as to what caused it to occur. But, of course, because I too am a slave to my own experience, I have a difficult time believing that it represents some flaw or issue with the sensor in that camera.
Maybe that's in part why people want objective standards to measure stuff by. I doubt it's ultimately possible (without caveats), but what started all this was a discussion about a website giving scores based on purportedly objective measurements, ironically.
Confirmation bias is a real problem, but some people do try to account for it. Not enough though