Home / Cameras / Camera / Panasonic Lumix FX37 / Test shots - ISO performance

Panasonic Lumix FX37 - Test shots - ISO performance

By Cliff Smith



Our Score:


Over the next few pages we show a range of test shots. On this page the full size image at the minimum and maximum ISO settings have been reduced to let you see the full image, and a series of full resolution crops have taken from original images at a range of ISO settings to show the overall image quality.


This is the full frame at the minimum setting of 100 ISO.


At 100 ISO the image quality is very good, with nice smooth tones and good detail.


Already at 200 ISO noise reduction effects are visible, with some loss of fine detail.


400 ISO and the noise reduction is even more severe.


800 ISO is worse than most other 10MP compacts at 1600.


1600 ISO is best avoided altogether.


This is the full frame at 1600 ISO.



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