Perhaps I need to use more emoticons to clarify my tone. I'm bemused by the article's conclusions, but hardly indignant. I also credited the otherwise high quality of the articles in question, it's just the tangential conclusion that leaves me scratching my head. I realize now that the title of this thread can be read as much more indignant than I intended. It's too late to revise, so my apology for unintentionally setting the wrong tone will have to suffice.
The "...at it again" heading comes from memory of the first wave of controversy the D30 article caused. A few people picked up on the conclusions and post links all over the net showing how the D30 clobbered 35mm. A wide range of flame wars ensued as well as a few thoughful discussions. A percentage of people following the link might read the full presentation and get the balanced presentation, but many don't care - a prominent web photography site said digital is better than film and that's all they really want to take away.
As you noted, the whole D60 article provides information that shows that digital isn't close to medium format for enlargement and cropping potential. To me at least, that makes the conclusion incredible (in the meaning of the word, "not credible"). Perhaps it's too cynical on my part, but I suspect that this concluding "web bite" was added knowing the amount of site traffic it would create (the author is clearly aware of the traffic the D30 article created and says so on the site).
Even if I'm right, I really rate this very low in the kinds of sins reviewers do, especially when the author gives you all the information necessary to come to a different conclusion. I don't find this anywhere near as annoying as the reviews that are published by magazines like "Outdoor Photographer" that read like a press release from the manufacturer and have essentially zero analytical content.
Would it make you more comfortable if I said the author's conclusion is "whacked, disingenuous, or schizophrenic" (oops, I DID say his "...conclusions are whacked")? I certainly don't intend to suggest an actual course of medication or therapy - I do think it's possible to react to the words while respecting the author. I didn't use the term "misguided" in reference to the author, it was in regard to the hypothetical person invested in a medium format system who never makes enlargements that 35mm couldn't handle easily.
And just to underline my earlier comments, I find Luminous Landscape and Michael Reichmann's articles to be a high quality and valuable resource. I highly recommend the site to anyone interested in the landscape photography and related tools and techniques. There are a number of authors for a variety of articles and most that I've read are quite worthwhile.
A cynical reading of your comments here could lead me to suspect you're less interested in the topic of discussion than in painting my comments as mean-spirited and disrespectful. Since you value friendly exchange here just as much as I do, I'll take your comments as constructive suggestions .