Olympus 17/1.8 review

You expected him to amend his review after you had provided him with additional information. But that required Ming to consider your information as accurate and relevant. But how could Ming know whether your estimation of 'fast enough' matches his estimation of fast enough? And focussing speed is not just a single number. And how could Ming know how relevant your information was? There are many camera-lens combinations and if for a few combinations somebody else reports a different experience in relative AF speed (and subjective judgement of), is that such important information that Ming should change his review because this should have convinced him that his report would mislead people?

If for Ming it goes without saying that AF speed experience is subjective and influenced by a lot of parameters, a request to point that out explicitly might easily seem unreasonable.

My comment about what is well known and what is not was about why my gut feeling told me that Ming's findings are more relevant and representative than your findings. It is you who is making requests (that Ming change his review), you have the burden of proof why we should believe you.

Well, don't you think the phrase 'I did not read it' could be understand as you saying that you didn't actually read the review? Or that the fact that in your reading of the review you did not find the information that his remarks refer to Olympus bodies, when in Ming's mind it was pretty obvious that this information was in there, indicating that you had not really read the review?