I’d like to introduce myself to all members of this discussion forum. My name is Bob Kozlarek and I’m the Product Engineer for Panasonic’s digital still cameras. I’ve corresponded with a few of you via private e-mails so some of you may already know me. This post might get lengthy and my response may run to page two pages; please stick with me guys!

While Panasonic employs me and I’m responsible for these products, I try to place myself in your position and always ask myself if I would buy this camera? Using that logic, I’ve been quite successful in negotiating several design issues prior to the product’s release. Our factory is very responsive and I’m very fortunate to have an excellent working relationship with them.

Over the past few months I’ve kept an open mind while closely reading all your comments, suggestions and criticisms. It was very obvious that some of the comments were from people who have never actually used the camera. In these cases comments were often based on images they downloaded off the net, and those who simply wanted to emphasize on going discussions. Via private e mails I contacted some of you and generally found most people were more intent on voicing concern, but had not actually experienced any problems themselves. Despite these facts, the comments were shared with our design engineers in Japan on a weekly basis. I asked them to study all the facts and see if any changes could be made to better meet the customer’s expectations without compromising the performance of the camera. Two weeks ago I visited Japan and had two meetings with our design engineers to discuss your concerns. While there I received two new versions of firmware to evaluate. I’d like to use this opportunity to thank all of you for taking the time to express your thoughts and offer your suggestions. Our factory echoes these sentiments!

Much of the initial concern about the LC5 originates from the first published review. The people at that web site complained that they did not receive their evaluation sample in a time frame they felt was acceptable. They may have drawn their own conclusions that Panasonic had something to hide. That certainly was not the case. In fact, delivering our product to the countless dealers and customers who were patiently waiting was and still is our first priority. What upset me was the fact that many comments in their review were taken, almost word for word, from early user forum comments. Frequent references to two firmware versions were constantly being mentioned, yet only one existed. Many comments were simply inaccurate.

In contrast, our Customer Call Center’s have been receiving many unsolicited comments from customer’s who, after purchasing the LC5, felt obligated to tell us how much they liked the camera. Many called to note the inaccuracy of the on line review. We’re also receiving very positive comments about our DMC-LC40. None mention of any of the above issues. Isn’t it strange that the LC5 and LC40 share the identical camera engine and firmware and their reviews sharply contrast each other? I suspect one must trace the present comments back to their respective origins. Often, customers rely on public discussion forums for guidance in the selection process. While opinions are helpful, only structured evaluations under controlled conditions place all cameras on a level playing field. Opinions are recollections of personal preferences. The viewer best judges the end result, and the process is akin to critiquing art work where each person perceives something different. While writing this response I searched the various forums on this site and was able to find several LC5 users who were very happy with the LC5 and publicly disputed many claims. (Move to Part 2.)