I would suggest shunning them is the right response.
The University of Reading is, of course, the august institution behind:
http://blog.jgc.org/2010/05/inside-rfid-virus.html
http://blog.jgc.org/2006/12/midas-number-or-why-divide-by-ze...
Kevin Warwick, on the other hand is a complex character who errs on the side of hype and unjustified self-publicity much too often. He is not taken very seriously in academic AI and robotics, except when he causes a collective face-palm with claims like this.
The press release people at Reading, or pretty much anywhere else, do not have the skills to assess whether their professor is begin daft or not.
Don't get me wrong: cybernetics is for real (see Norbert Weiner). Just clarifying Warwick's field. He currently publishes stuff on brain-machine interfaces, mostly.
If anything, it's the pixel-peepers and the "I need a bigger lens" that are non-scientific nuts (essentially gear fashion victims, who would buy a $10,000 Leica when a $1000 Nikon can give the same results).
Actually it's not. For one, Leica doesn't make their own sensors. Second, they have a very hard time with their processor software (in camera). The first model they put out a few years ago had awful color rendition and strange casts. And not that great performance in low light either. And I mean compared to the models of the era then. At least, IIRC, they smartly removed the antialias filter, or put a very soft one, which gave them a more sharpness, but that was mostly it. Nothing making the camera (M8) worthy being sold for multi-thousand dollars sans lens.
What made Leica legendary (back in the day) was their mechanical construction capabilities in the year of analogue cameras this mattered. In the era of digital they cannot compete with a behemoth like Canon making their own sensors, processors and firmware to drive them. Or even Nikon.
Of course they still make good lenses. But that's just part of the story -- and they are not that better than comparable in price high ends models from other brands.
So, no, a "sufficiently skilled photographer" wouldn't produce a better picture with the Leica. It's an inferior product in every way except mechanical construction (and re-sale value). Plus it's a rangefinder -- the precise focus capability of a DSLR is much better.
In fact most accomplished photographers today don't shoot Leica's. They did that back in the day for reporting (like Bresson or Capa). Today they use either some Canon high end (D)SLR or some medium format (if they want to signal "professional").
I've seen Warwick speak. He's not afraid to throw science away completely in favour of making a dramatic point.
I remember him claiming his flesh "embraced" an implant by growing around it when he described the typical immune rejection response he experienced.
And his definition of a cyborg here is bullshit. Anyone with a heart pacemaker is much closer to a cyborg than someone with a RFID chip in their arm. Hell, they are being kept alive by a machine! The first pacemaker implants date to the late 1950s.
I agree that placing my brain in a robot suit would classify, and probably replacing my arm with a full robotic arm. What about heart replacements, or eyes? Where do you draw the line?
Personally, given the definition of cyborg being "something with both mechanical and organic parts" I think all the above and yes, even placing an RFID chip in your arm, would make you a cyborg whether you accept it or not.
"Professor Kevin Warwick, the world's leading expert in Cybernetics, here he unveils the story of how he became the worlds first Cyborg in a ground breaking set of scientific experiments. "
: having a formal and impressive quality