Home » Cameras » Camera » Panasonic Lumix FX37 » Test Shots - Detail and Lens Performance

Panasonic Lumix FX37 - Test Shots - Detail and Lens Performance

By Cliff Smith


Our Score


Review Price free/subscription

A range of general test shots are shown over the next two pages. In some cases, the full size image has been reduced for bandwidth purposes, and a crop taken from the original full resolution image has been placed below it to show the overall image quality. Some other pictures may be clicked to view the original full-size image.


Here's the usual detail test shot of the West Window of Exeter Cathedral, for you to compare with other cameras. See below for a full res crop, or click to see the whole picture.


This shot was taken on a slightly overcast day, but even so the image seems to lack texture and definition.


Unusually for one of Panasonic's usually excellent Leica lenses, this on shows noticeable barrel distortion at wide angle.


Centre sharpness is good...


...but there is visible blurring in the corners of the frame, again unusual for a Leica lens.


Previous page
Next page


September 19, 2008, 9:50 pm

I think the review is a bit harsh, compared to the raving review the FX35 got.

Although I do not own any of these cameras, I did compare the testpictures of both cameras on this site (and other sites) and they appear to be very similar, not to say identical: bit soft, noisy in shadows and not that sharp compared to other brands.

(Post-processing these images, sharpen them a bit isn't possible without adding even more noise)

In fact I was somewhat surprised the FX35 got such a good score (9) for image quality, when other cameras of brands like Canon and Sony, which test images (to me at least) looked much better, 'only' recieved a score of 8.

It goes to show image quality is rather subjective.


November 12, 2008, 12:41 am

Indeed, I don't really understand what's happening here..

If you open and compare the test shots made by FX35 and FX37 on this site, you can clearly see that pictures taken by FX35 are considerably worse, particularly the one shot at ISO 100 !! There are clearly visible artefacts at the yellow inside part of the green car, which are practically absent on the FX37 shot.. The rest shots of FX35 are also worse that the ones from FX37.

I am really lost. Trying to understand how reviewer evaluates those shots. It looks like he was in the good mood when reviewing FX35, and in bad mood when doing the same with FX37..


January 15, 2009, 10:33 pm

It's evident FX37's image quality made a step forward from FX35, so I'll also have to agree with nout and DVR; what was/is the reviewer thinking?

Keith 6

January 25, 2009, 11:46 pm

Where is the Conclusions page? Judging by the comments and the score of 7 there were some negative comments in the Conclusion - as I am considering this camera I would like to read them but there are no Conclusions posted.


April 2, 2009, 7:26 am

Once again, as I said in my comments on the FX500, I don't really understand Cliff's rating criteria, because the FX35 gets a better value rating when the price of it and the FX37 are the same ($349 US list price). Yes, the 5x zoom on the FX37 is perhaps not quite as sharp as the 4x on the FX35, but the difference is minimal and probably not visible unless pixel peeping. Prints at 8x10 or less would probably be indistinguishable. Cliff's sample photos from the FX37 look fantastic to me.

comments powered by Disqus