NOTE: This should be retitled to: How to Show An Irrational Bias. There is a review on Steve Huff's website written by a guest writer regarding the X100. It's a terribly written review with no standards of journalism applied to it, it's an abject lesson in showing one's bias. Something which Steve Huff even distances himself from by saying so in one of the reviews many disclaimers and warnings. Said review: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/...native-view-of-the-fuji-x100-by-david-babsky/ However, the icing on the cake are the comments. Of course a lot of them are incendiary/critical towards the reviewer, but Seal, Leica's Ambassador chips in, gushing over the review, and what ensues is a X1 vs X100 debate. The critical turning point is when Seal declares the image quality of the X1 in a league above the X100 while seemingly ignoring all reviews and tests done between the two cameras declaring the X100 the overall better camera. Seal emphases his ignorance this by stating that his eyes see better quality images with the X1. When commentators ask him how this is possible and why is he ignoring a general consensus that the X100 is the better camera, one commentator calls his view pretentious. Just 'pretentious' mind you, it's not the worse thing to call somebody. But instead of replying with a thoughtful critique and bringing people onto his side explaining why the X1 is actually better, Seal threatens a person instead stating he is on dangerous ground and doesn't suffer fools easily and thus sidesteps the whole debate with a straw-man argument because his character has been insulted and he needs to defend that instead. Seal posts as user '^6' by the way. Something to read on a lazy Saturday at least.