Panasonic GX85 Image Quality

Here we compare the Panasonic GX85 to its predecessor, the GX7, at base ISO. While resolution has not changed, it's immediately apparent the GX85 delivers a sharper, crisper image with slightly better detail, thanks to the lack of an optical low-pass filter which the GX7 has. However, the GX7 does show fewer aliasing artifacts whereas moiré and jaggies can be more easily seen from the GX85. The GX85's image is also slightly cleaner, with lower noise in flatter areas. Colors are also slightly more pleasing from the GX85 with less of shift to green in yellows, however the GX7 does a better job with pinks as the GX85 renders them a bit too magenta.

We decided to compare the Panasonic GX85 to the LX100 as the latter has been discounted to less than the price of the GX85 at time of writing, despite its fast f/1.7-2.8 24-75mm equivalent fixed lens (the GX85 is kited with the much slower f/3.5-5.6 24-64mm eq. interchangeable lens). The GX85 does resolve more detail than the LX100, partially because the LX100 only uses about 12.7 megapixels of its 16-megapixel sensor (which is why objects appear smaller from the LX100 when viewed at 100% like this). The LX100 also has an optical low-pass filter which softens the image very slightly compared to the GX85, though some of the difference can likely also be attributed to the lens. Color is more pleasing from the GX85 and noise is also a little lower.

At base ISO, the Panasonic GX85 captures more detail than the Fuji X-T10. There are a least a couple of reasons for this: 1) The Fuji' X-T10 3:2 aspect ratio sensor actually has fewer pixels on the vertical axis, giving the 4:3 GX85 a slight advantage in resolution when framed vertically like this, and 2) The demosaicing required for the X-Trans sensor's unique color filter doesn't do as well with certain types of fine detail. The Fuji X-T10 also applies less aggressive default sharpening which gives its images a softer look. Colors are however more pleasing from the Fuji, noise levels (particularly chroma noise) are lower, and the X-T10 manages to resolve fine detail in our tricky red-leaf swatch better, though contrast is lower.

Like the GX85, the 16-megapxiel Olympus E-M10 II also does not have an OLPF to maximize sharpness at the risk of higher aliasing artifacts. Here at base ISO we see both cameras offer very similar resolving power, but the E-M10 II's default processing is a bit more aggressive, with stronger sharpening, higher contrast and brighter, more pleasant colors, giving the Olympus image more "pop". The E-M10 II's noise reduction also appears to be slightly stronger, producing slightly lower noise but at the cost of reduced detail in some areas, such as in our red-leaf swatch.

The 24-megapixel Sony A6000 with its APS-C sized sensor out-resolves the 16-megapixel Four Thirds sensor of the GX85, while producing a crisper image with fewer sharpening artifacts thanks to a very weak (or no) optical low-pass filter combined with Sony's more advanced JPEG processing. Overall color and contrast are a little better from the Sony as well.

The Panasonic GX85's OLPF-less sensor continues to pay dividends here at ISO 1600, producing a sharper image than its predecessor, with fewer sharpening artifacts and less visible noise, likely because default sharpening was dialed back. However, minor aliasing artifacts continue to be more evident from the GX85.

The GX85 continues to resolve a bit more detail than the LX100 at ISO 1600, but the difference is more subtle now. Noise levels remain lower from the GX85, as does its improved color reproduction.

The Panasonic GX85 continues to resolve more detail in most areas of our Still Life target, though the Fuji continues to deliver a smoother image with more pleasing colors, and fine detail in our tricky red-leaf swatch is much better from the X-T10. Luma noise levels are roughly comparable, but the Fuji continues to produce lower chroma noise.

At ISO 1600, the Olympus E-M10 II produces a crisper, smoother, more vibrant image but noise reduction artifacts in the form of mottling or blotches are generally more evident. The GX85 produces fewer artifacts in areas with fine detail, but its area-specific noise reduction does leave some edges a bit rough and noisy. Both cameras struggle with our tricky red-lead swatch, but the GX85 retains a bit more detail.

The A6000 is still able to resolve more detail at ISO 1600 with slightly lower noise, but the image looks more processed compared to the GX85, with stronger noise reduction artifacts and more obvious signs of areas-specific noise reduction along high-contrast edges. The A6000 gives the impression it does better in the red-leaf swatch, but much of the detail is distorted and false instead of just blurred.

At ISO 3200, the GX85 manages to produce a slightly sharper more contrasty image, but revised noise reduction impacts fine detail a bit more than the GX7. Chroma noise in particular is much lower from the GX85, which has the side-effect of smearing fine detail in our red-leaf swatch more than the GX7.

The GX85 still manages to capture a bit more detail than the LX100, but the more obvious resolution advantage we saw at lower ISOs is somewhat diminished due to noise. The GX85 continues to produce brighter, more pleasing colors.

Here at ISO 3200, the Fuji X-T10's rendition is more faithful than the GX85's, with better detail, fewer noise reduction artifacts, and brighter, more pleasing colors, though its image still looks a bit softer overall in comparison.

Similar to what we saw at ISO 1600, the E-M10 II produces a smoother, more contrasty and vibrant image at ISO 3200, but fine details are more mottled by strong noise reduction that doesn't appear to be area-specific.

The Sony A6000's resolution advantage is still evident at ISO 3200, and overall color and contrast are still better, but stronger noise reduction artifacts give the image a more artificial, processed look, particularly in flatter areas.