well, i had to try and read it, didn't i? what a waste of time :/. haven't read it all (at this time in the morning, i really don't need a bed time storry to put me to sleep..), but what i did read pointed out two main conclusions:
1. it sounds neutral. not positive, not negative, neutral, i dare say, and trying damn hard at being it.
2. this is not a review, this is literature. this reminds me of those "stevesdigicams" "reviews" (pasted official spec sheets), only this one is longer, more inaccurate and even less useful. it feels it could have been written without ever touching the camera, as if the writer just put a lot of words around some key features, to generate content, but without actually saying much that i couldn't figure out myself from reading the specs. just when you think it's getting to the point, there's a short and mostly meaningless conclusion (it underexposes, the k20d had the same issue; you don't say? i must be blind, than, we must all be), and off we go to the next "point" (slowly though), instead of seeing arguments and genuine insightful opinions which only somebody having used the camera can write. that's what we are reading the review for, not speculations based on the number of focus points, and how that "sounds" compared to more focusing points, "on paper".
i don't mean to be harsh, maybe i'm just too tired and missed the interesting insightful stuff, but at this point, i just want my 1/2h back