I give credit that PCA mag and this site both list items in order of merit, which is something. But I criticise that reviewers of equipment accept without question all manufacturers' claims/specs; also that digital cameras are given undue emphasis on pixel count against their quality of optics, especially at full zoom. I know it must be an effort for reviewers to keep up-to-date, but for example the Visioneer 9020 scanner, currently no.2, has been replaced by model 9320, available in USA August (150 dollars+ tax)and now in Germany. It has a much higher spec than the 9020, and this site's present review should at least give warning of the successor. My main grumble about reviews generally is the unquestioned acceptance of advertisers' spin.
Your criticism of reviewers in claiming that they "accept without question all manufacturers' claims/specs" is completely without foundation and could be considered a case of libel.
As for quality of optics etc, no two lenses are exactly the same, nor ever could be, in their quality, no matter what the focal length or zoom setting.
As for pixel count and optics quality, the two go together - a 3MP camera should produce more detailed resolution than a 2MP verison, even using the same lens design.
A further point is that PCA rates only the products it tests in merit order - there are many other models that are never mentioned, no doubt due to the sheer range available and regular introduction of new ranges.
So it is merely a short term guide and there may well be superior models on the market. That's why you have to check all avenues before making a decision on a purchase.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.