First off, I love my Lumix LX5. It’s small, fast and has produced great shots over the past year. When the card/battery door failed to open automatically, I called Panasonic on Nov. 28, 2011 and inquired about warranty coverage (the camera was under a year old). It appeared that the spring was no longer functioning. It was a small detail, but I’m very careful about my equipment and I like everything in proper working order. I was told to send it in and they would have their technician review it, determine if it was covered under their warranty and contact me within 7-10 business days. UPS confirmed that Panasonic received it at their repair facility in McAllen TX on Dec. 2, 2011. After a week and a half, I called them and was told that they would call me once a technician got a chance to look at the camera. I waited until mid December and began calling them again. Each call was met with same flat message...‘we’ll call you when we get around to looking at your camera’. Finally on Jan. 3rd, 2012, 32 days after they received my camera, I got a voicemail stating that from Panasonic determined that my camera’s card/battery door failed to open due to “physical damage”; that it wasn’t covered by the warranty and the repair for this minor adjustment would be $275. Remember this is a camera that was lightly used and, with the exception of the failed card/battery door, is in perfect working condition. If I was selling this camera, it would be listed as in like-new condition...no dings, wear marks, etc. I called back and asked Marko, the CSR how Panasonic could determine that the failure was caused by me when the camera was in pristine condition, never dropped and showed no signs of wear. He was very polite and put me on hold to speak to the tech who wrote up the estimate. He told me that the tech found a very slight “cosmetic mark” on the bottom of the camera body and assigned an Inspection Code of “ABUSED”. In addition to being upset by the result of this analysis, I was more concerned that my pristine camera now had a new mark on it after it arrived within the Panasonic facility. The representative admitted that this “mark” could not possibly have caused any malfunction. When I asked about the door repair, he said that the tech just adjusted it and it works fine. So this was the repair that Panasonic originally tried to charge me $275 on a camera that cost $400. My camera arrived on January 20th, 7 weeks from when it was received at Panasonic. I examined it with a magnifying glass and found an infinitesimal wear spot too small to notice without the glass. I’m an experienced photographer and I understand how important good equipment maintenance service is to the brand in today’s competitive market. I’ve had excellent warranty and repair service on my Nikons and Leica and they both were extremely prompt and professional. My impression of the Panasonic Customer Experience Group is that you operate under a dishonest model to avoid as many legitimate warranty repairs as possible at the expense of the customer. How else do I react to an estimate of $275 for an adjustment that was done within the time of a quick phone conversation. If that isn’t intentional, then the repair department in McAllen Texas is grossly incompetent. This is the 4th Panasonic camera that I’ve owned over several years. This experience makes it very hard for me to consider buying another Panasonic product.