"Big Brother is watching you "woodygg" ... "
In case you're wondering why I am replying to your comments- you appear to insist on labouring a point about different aspects of artefacts (like your persistence with watercolour effects - BTW this is a commoners' reference, not a technical reference) and bragging about your VIP status & experiences in photography.
Please will you readup again on flash photography before you shame yourself when making blanketing comments on exposures at 1/30th sec & 1/60th sec... consult your other proclaimed "better" sites and let me know what your other brothers will be advising you?
You also claim to try to be objective, but your 'repeated' criticism of Panasonic seems to omit any reference to any test criteria, e.g. conditions of climate, (i.e. available lighting conditions) - which would partly explain why "you" in particular is the "only" person achieving these watercolour deffects ...
You may wish to learn that neither 1/30th sec or 1/6oth sec exposures will have any significant bearing on the speed of flashgun exposures ... and their effect on pixels - when distances of flach to subject is more important than mere shutter speeds,
relating to your ref to "watercolour effects" - certainly not within the 'NIL' info you provided regarding when and what conditions were such pictures taken.
Whilst that was some months ago, you are now begining to discredit the other photographically informed members of CNET (especially some of us with more detailed experience than yours in flash technology) , by starting to tar the brand of Panasonic once again.
If you havent tried the newer model, your comments are not at all relevant. (Other CNET members can readilly lookup your earlier remarks/thread without any need of your faithless reminders)
Are you bored or something?
Please kindly state any test conditions (if you have even established some?) in future when you want to put yourself on some kind of pedestal of 'digital camera expertise'
Every different available lighting condition or scenario will cause each different camera model to respond and perform in different ways, which will partially explain why you seem very frustrated with repeatedly achieving pixelated results -
no one else appears to have the same defect achievement rate like you are getting? At least not with that kind of regularity!?
I can only suggest that the old addage -
" a little knowledge is very dangerous "
and you appear to be one of those victims.
CNET isnt a place to place bets on - and I really couldnt stand it anymore reading your doubly protective method of writing, and simply have to ask you to stop bragging about your "qualification" approach -Everyone else has just as much relevance to make their comments,
and any 10- out- of - 10 vote is genuinely an honest vote proclaimed by that writer.
Your attempt at rescaling other people's votes of delight - isnt really welcomed, and your attempts to "qualify" your expertise, actually gets people's backs up.
Whilst some of us are gracious enough to apologise for their rebuttal of your '4 out of ten' vote on that Lumix DMC- FX07,
you were'nt quite as gracious,
but continued to requalify your college and/or photographic prowess !
"We're" watching you .... alright?
Seems there are others more 'knowledgeable' than you have just come on board ?
I wonder how this makes you feel?
BTW - I dont work for Panasonic, or CNET, nor have I ever voted 10-out-of-10 on anything and I certainly do have "some" experience in not just photography, today and throughout my entire working life -
You should really leave your career CV back in the folio ... there's no need to brag about how much more your opinion matters than those others who want to continue to vote 10- out - of - 10
Just make your comments and leave them to be as significant contributors as you are.