Originally posted by photocat I'm not sure a pc mag is the best source of camera reviews
Probably true.
The RAW files would likely not be corrected in camera, is what they mean. Though your experience seems to disagree with this. Perhaps to their tests consider a much lower level of distortion an issue than that which you find acceptable or even perceptible. This could be a real issue for some, but I really doubt it's that big a deal in a compact p&s camera such as this one. However, it is $500 (or thereabouts).
I don't mind the lack of a hot shoe either. I do think it's a nice feature to have though, and there are other cameras in the same price vicinity that have them.
The unresponsiveness is where you and I differ. I find it pretty annoying when a camera is slow or unresponsive, in much the same way I get annoyed with a cell phone that is slow or unresponsive. In this day and age, with the technology available, I personally think it's inexcusable to produce an unresponsive camera, especially one priced at $500. I don't think there's any reason it needs to be unresponsive, and so why is it?
My K-5 IIs, by way of example, is slower than other dslrs I've used in some ways (the lack of UHS compatibility is a bit obnoxious, and again, why?), but I certainly wouldn't ever refer to it as 'unresponsive'. I understand if you fire off a burst, then the camera needs to catch up so you can't view files for a moment, but for each shot? I think that's a bit much.
But yes, much of this is personal preference, and I'm still very interested in the camera. I think it has a lot going for it. It would be sad if the lens wasn't quite so great, but the reality is that you shouldn't necessarily be trying to get edge-to-edge sharp landscape shots with a p&s either.
However, by way of comparison I found the lens on the Olympus XZ-1 quite good. One hopes it's at least in the same league as that one. =)