Panasonic G9 Image Quality

Here we compare the G9 to its predecessor, the G85, at base ISO. The G9 not only gets a resolution boost to 20 megapixels over the G85's 16-megapixel sensor, but it also gets improved image processing courtesy of Panasonic's latest generation Venus processor. As you can see, the G9 image has a larger scale and is more detailed from the increased pixel count. We also see improved contrast and more pleasing color from the G9's revised processing. Moiré patterns are more visible from the G9 here in the red-leaf fabric, however both cameras lack an optical low-pass filter, so the G85 can also generate aliasing artifacts, just in different situations because of its lower resolution. Our tricky red-leaf fabric also illustrates the G9's context-sensitive processing, where it retains and even exaggerates the fabric's thread pattern in some areas but not in others, while the G85 produces a smoother rendering with virtually no thread pattern visible (although some of the difference here is just a result of the G85's lower resolving power).

These two siblings produce very similar image quality here at base ISO, as both feature OLPF-less 20-megapixel sensors with the same generation Venus image processor. The G9 image is just a bit sharper and slightly more detailed, however be aware we have changed our lab lens and aperture for Micro Four Thirds cameras since the GH5 was shot, moving from a Zuiko 50mm f/2 at f/8 to a Leica Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 at f/5.6 which results in slightly sharper images with less diffraction. Thus, the slightly sharper G9 image can be attributed to better optics.

Above we compare the Bayer-filtered MFT Panasonic G9 to the X-Trans-filtered APS-C Fuji X-T3. You might expect the 26-megapixel X-T3 to have a noticeable resolution advantage over the 20-megapixel G9 here, but both cameras have similar dimensions on the vertical axis (4160 vs 3888 pixels) which is how this target is framed, so the resolution difference is very minor and mostly boils down to different demosaicing algorithms and processing. Luminance noise appears a little higher from the X-T3 in flatter areas, but the G9 produces a crisper image with slightly better detail overall. The G9 does noticeably better in most of the fabrics, but it also shows more aliasing artifacts which the XT-3's X-Trans filter helps avoid. Both cameras produce pleasing colors though the Fuji's are warmer.

Above we compare the G9 to another 20-megapixel MFT camera without an OLPF, the Olympus E-M1 II. At base ISO, the G9 does a slightly better job at rendering fine detail while the E-M1 II image shows more obvious sharpening haloes and is slightly cleaner. Again, be aware we have since changed lab lenses and aperture for MFT cameras, though, giving the G9 a somewhat "unfair" advantage in optics here, though some of the difference in detail is due to the E-M1 II's stronger default noise reduction at base ISO. We know this because the E-M1 II's extended low ISO 64 shot shows significantly more detail in the red-leaf swatch and elsewhere in the target. The sharper optics also likely contribute to moiré patterns in the red-leaf fabric being more visible from the G9 as well, though again the E-M1 II's stronger default noise reduction does blur the leaf and thread patterns quite a bit more than the G9 here at ISO 200.

Here we compare the 24-megapixel APS-C Sony A6500 to the 20-megapixel MFT G9. At base ISO, the A6500 produces a slightly crisper, more detailed image with almost no sharpening haloes. The A6500 also exaggerates the offset printing coloration in the mosaic label which the G9 appears to attenuate. Fine detail and contrast are much better in our tricky red-leaf swatch from the Sony as well, however moiré patterns are visible from both cameras. Colors are cooler but generally more accurate from the Panasonic.

At ISO 1600, the G9 shows significant improvements in both detail retention and color reproduction over its predecessor, while producing slightly lower luma and chroma noise levels in flatter areas despite its smaller pixels.

As expected, we see very similar image quality from these two siblings here at 1600 with just minor differences in color and noise, though again the G9 produced a slightly sharper, more contrasty image thanks to the better optics.

The G9 continues to do a better job rendering fine detail than the X-T3 here at ISO 1600, while at the same time producing much lower luma noise. The Fuji however produces fewer aliasing artifacts and lower chroma noise. Again, colors are noticeably warmer from the Fuji but still pleasing.

At ISO 1600, the G9 holds onto significantly more fine detail than the E-M1 II. While the sharper lens contributes to the G9's better performance, the E-M1 II's stronger default noise reduction plays a larger roll here, smudging fine detail while still producing higher luma noise in flatter areas, though the Olympus' noise "grain" pattern is tighter and more consistent.

The G9 competes quite well with the A6500 here at ISO 1600, retaining similar levels of fine detail with lower noise and better color, however sharpening artifacts are more evident. The Sony does noticeably better in our tricky red-leaf swatch though.

Again, the higher-resolution G9 does better at retaining fine detail with improved contrast and color while at the same producing less objectionable noise "grain" in flatter areas. The G9 also produces fewer sharpening artifacts along most edges, however some edges aren't as well defined as from the G85.

Once again, just minor differences between the two siblings here at ISO 3200, with the G9 producing slightly better color and contrast. Upon close inspection, noise levels appear a little lower from the G9, and the "grain" pattern is less blocky or "digital-looking" in flatter areas as well.

At ISO 3200, the G9 image appears sharper, contrastier and cleaner, but with more noticeable sharpening haloes. Fine detail is a little better from the X-T3 in our troublesome red-leaf fabric, though both cameras blur it significantly at this ISO. Colors are still warmer from the Fuji.

This is a pretty close race here at ISO 3200, with the G9 cranking up its default noise reduction more than the E-M1 II compared to ISO 1600. The G9 image has slightly higher contrast and is a bit sharper with more visible sharpening haloes, but both cameras hold onto similar amounts of detail. Luma noise is noticeably higher from the Olympus, though, but it's more fine-grained and film-like in appearance.

The A6500 image is crisper with better detail here at ISO 3200, but it's also much noisier in the flatter areas, so it's difficult to pick a definitive winner here as it comes down to personal preference. Color remains better from the Panasonic, if a bit cool.