Disappointing

Halina123 wrote:

OzRay wrote:

I don't think the OP even owns a TG-5 or a TG-2 for that matter.

Cheap may well be in the eye of the holder, but the first thing that struck me about the camera was how robust and solid it felt for its size.

As for GPS, it locks on pretty fast after first acquisition (which is always the longest), something common to every GPS unit I own (I own quite a few).

The screen showing GPS position is there, which seems to indicate that the OP doesn't own the camera (you won't see the coords as the GPS was off):

Unless you stick your ear to the camera, you can't hear the zoom. Zooming wile videoing is not a good idea anyway, if you want good looking video.

Only recording for a few seconds? Nope, you obviously don't have this camera.

And the OP's scale of what the camera is good for and what it's not is laughable.

You would think if they wanted to bag a camera, they would come up with some credible reasons, not crap that makes them look like a complete idiot.

Maybe posters should prove that they actually own the equipment before they are allowed to post reviews about it.

The problem with that is that there isn't any way to automate a verification process, and there aren't enough moderators to come close to keeping up.

Proof could be serial numbers, photos taken with Exif files or photo of camera

I'm not keen on listing the serial numbers of my gear, but I wouldn't mind posting a photo of it.

It's usually not too difficult to spot problematic reviews, though. If an account has been open for ten years, and there's only a single post made, it looks very suspicious to me. Seems more likely that someone created some puppet accounts years ago, and burns one when they want to post something like the OP. I don't get the motivation ("I hate Olympus so much I post bogus reviews!" - I guess), but it happens.