EX2F availability now September 12, 2012

The Jacal wrote:
. . .

You mentioned "those suspect samples" , not the 'possibly suspect samples' or 'the stragely bad samples', no, it was those suspect samples

Of course, and it's a perfectly reasonable thing to say. Calling them "suspect" doesn't say that I know that they're bad, just that they might be, and in this case they're bad enough that most reasonable photographers could substitute "probably are" for "might be".

'Probably' and 'might' are vastly different.

There's a slight difference but I gave the reason why it was a justifiable substitution. What you previously wrote implied that calling the samples "suspect" should only be done if one knows that they are bad. That's where the problem with comprehension lies.

If you think that there's nothing suspicious about those samples then you either know little about photography or you don't know the English language very well.

I didn't say they weren't. I know plenty about photography and a fair bit about the industry.
Oh, and I've been learning English since the early seventies.

Yes, and Frederick Forsythe's books probably were very helpful. I've read a couple (not including TDotJ) and think that he's overrated, almost a hack of a writer of suspense novels. But they were is more recent novels, so perhaps he became bored as he aged.

The samples are suspect, and whether you are able to understand that or not is your problem, not ours.

'Might' be my problem or is 'probably' my problem? See above.

Both are correct. English is like that, you know. In your case though, you probably don't.

Some of DPR's NX Studio Sample photos contained in their NX review were also suspect and I said so at the time that they were initially posted. DPR first denied that, giving all sorts of reasons why they were perfectly fine when the samples showed that the NX200 produced some really awful images. DPR eventually capitulated and re-shot the samples using a 60mm NX lens instead of the manual focus Pentax 50mm lens that was originally used. The new NX sample photos were vastly superior, with DPR admitting that they produced higher resolution than the NEX7's images. This wasn't the fault of the otherwise excellent NEX7. It was due to the lower quality NEX lens that was used to shoot its Studio images. It would probably have been much worse if DPR used the same Pentax lens on the NEX7 for the Studio sample images.

Don't know why you're mentioning this, can't use a different lens on the EX2.

Yet another demonstration of cluelessness or missing the point. It's not about interchangeable lenses, but about the fact that anyone, even trusted, reliable sources can sometimes post suspect images. In DPR's case, the original, full resolution images could be downloaded and they contained full EXIF data, which is how I determined that the aperture stated wasn't actually used, since the MF lens mounted with an adapter doesn't provide aperture information, but it could be inferred by knowing the shutter speed, the ISO used, and comparing it with other samples shot using different ISO values. The EX2f sample came with no source, no EXIF data, and were multi-shot crop composites that almost any fanboy could have kludged in minutes.

If it's only slightly better than the EX1/TL500, I'll also give it a pass.

Your choice.

Sure, and that's as it should be. But you're now going after me much more than the "fault denying" Samsung fanboys that you've told us over and over again are the Bête Noires that you love to rail against.

But you'll still be here spitting your anger and venom at your imagination's foes, both real and imaginary.

Almost Orwellian, nice.

As previously noted, I don't think that you're snake even though you might be ( ) but I really should ask, "Winston, is that you?"