The image above right was taken with the Panasonic GX1 with the 14-42mm Power Zoom set to 19mm (38mm equivalent) and the aperture set to f5.6 in Aperture Priority mode; f5.6 was chosen to maximise sharpness while avoiding diffraction, and selected on all three cameras below for a level playing field. The original JPEG measured 8.56MB.

On this page you’re comparing cameras with different aspect ratios: the Olympus E-P3 and Panasonic GX1 employ the Micro Four Thirds standard with a squarish aspect ratio of 4:3, while the Sony NEX-5N with its APS-C sensor delivers slightly wider 3:2 shaped images. Where aspect ratios differ, I always match the vertical field of view in comparisons, which obviously penalises models with wider ratios. As such on this page, I’m only effectively comparing a 4:3 crop from the middle of the Sony 5N image and ignoring thin strips on either side. This means the 5N is effectively operating like a 14.2 Megapixel camera in this test, making it the middle of the three models on test with the Panasonic GX1 boasting 16 Megapixels and the Olympus E-P3 still employing 12.

The three models may sport different effective resolutions, but a quick glance at the crops below reveals the biggest difference is in terms of image processing. The Sony NEX-5N and especially the Olympus E-P3 are clearly adopting punchier processing than the Panasonic GX1 which looks quite soft in comparison. We’ve seen this before with the earlier Panasonic G3 and like that model I found the GX1’s images can greatly benefit from a boost in contrast and especially sharpening. While testing these cameras I also had the chance to compare all three Panasonic Lumix G kit zooms and found the older, non-collapsing models were fractionally crisper at this focal length – not massively so, but it’s a contributing factor in the relative softness of the image here.

Moving onto the crops, there’s no coloured fringing to note on the first row, which implies some digital processing taking place. The real action starts on the second row though, where the difference in default processing settings in addition to any optical variations in the respective lenses becomes readily apparent. The Olympus E-P3 is the punchiest of the three, although arguably is a tad over-cooked. The sharpness is certainly eye-catching, but depending on your preferences, you may wish to reduce it a little. Conversely the Panasonic GX1 is looking soft in comparison here, and while many details can be brought-out with a boost in sharpening, there’s still a fuzziness in certain areas – most visibly here in the tree foliage – which is also present on RAW files. Meanwhile the Sony NEX-5N takes a sensible middle-ground, delivering a decent degree of real-life detail without any undesirable processing artefacts.

Really fine details seem to trip up the GX1 in this test, but as the crops move onto areas closer to the camera as seen on the third and fourth rows, it begins to perform better. Note this might suggest a focusing error, but all three cameras were focused on the same part of the image just to the lower left of centre.

Looking at the third row of crops, the three models initially look similar, but start pixel-peeping and you’ll see fractionally higher detail on the GX1 and 5N, as their higher resolutions would suggest. Likewise on the fourth and final row of crops where the GX1 and 5N again resolve slightly greater fine detail than the E-P3.

Out of the camera without changing any settings, I’d say the Sony NEX-5N enjoys the best overall image quality in this test, carefully balancing enhanced detail while avoiding undesirable artefacts. The Olympus E-P3 may be slightly out-resolved by its rivals here, but it’s only by a very small margin which will only really be apparent to dedicated pixel-peepers; certainly what Olympus are achieving with this ageing 12 Megapixel sensor is impressive, and those who favour punchy results will prefer its default output, although others may prefer to tone it down a little. Meanwhile as I’ve said before, the Panasonic GX1 can really benefit from a boost in sharpening and contrast, but don’t hold this comparison too much against it. When viewed in isolation the GX1 images look detailed and very natural. It’s only when you place them next to a model with more aggressive processing that they look comparatively soft. Of course some may also prefer this approach as it’s easier to add sharpening and contrast than it is to take it away.

The GX1 offers plenty of in-camera adjustments, but for the best results I’d always recommend shooting in RAW and processing the files using software on yuor computer. To find out what benefits you can look forward to, check out my Panasonic GX1 RAW vs JPEG results. Alternatively if you’re ready for some high ISO comparisons, check out my Panasonic GX1 noise page, or if you’d like to download some photos to check out for yourself, head over to my Panasonic GX1 sample images page. Or if you’ve seen enough proceed directly to my Panasonic GX1 verdict!

On the previous page we saw how the Panasonic GX1’s default processing for in-camera JPEGs is relatively laid back. Like the Lumix G3 before it, this is fine if you’re not a fan of over-cooked processing, but equally the big question is how well do the GX1’s images respond to a boost in sharpening and contrast? As always the best way to find out is to start with a RAW file so I shot this scene in the RAW + JPEG mode and processed the former with the supplied SilkyPIX software. For the desired boost I adjusted the Levels within the program and applied an Unsharp Mask at 100 during export.

The difference as seen below is quite dramatic and the processed RAW file is certainly much punchier, but is it technically any better? Looking closely the boost in sharpening has definitely enhanced a little more fine detail, most apparent in the tree foliage and buildings, but there’s still a clumpiness in some of the trees in the second row of crops and also a slight posterised effect where certain details, like house roofs, appear as solid areas of colour. This is a trait I’ve seen before on some Panasonic cameras, but like these previous models it seems to affect some types of detail more than others.

It’s definitely seen worst here on the second row of crops, and turning back to the previous page reveals the Sony NEX-5N and Olympus E-P3 delivering finer spatial and tonal details in those specific trees and rooftops which trip-up the Panasonic. But move onto the third and fourth rows of crops and the processing enhancements made to the GX1’s RAW file here have delivered what most would agree to be a visibly superior result to the 5N and E-P3.

This illustrates a particular processing style may suit some types of subjects more than others even if they exist on the same image. More importantly it shows that while the GX1 isn’t immune to the occasional clumpiness observed on previous Lumix models, its RAW files can certainly unveil finer details and punchier output if that’s what you desire – and given the right subject matter the GX1 can compete and even outclass the best of its rivals on detail at low ISOs.

Now lets see how the camera performs at high sensitivities in my Panasonic GX1 noise results page. Alternatively if you’d like to download some photos to check out for yourself, head over to my Panasonic GX1sample images page, or if you’ve seen enough proceed directly to my Panasonic GX1 verdict!

Each camera was fitted with its respective kit zoom lens and adjusted to deliver the same vertical field of view. Each lens was also focused on the same point on the image (the flower arrangement) and set to f5.6 in Aperture priority; f5.6 was chosen to maximise sharpness and minimise diffraction. All DR enhancement was disabled.