I have no idea how real they are. No appreciable difference between the LX-5 and EX-1. I guess if I was thinking about the Olympus, it might give me a moment's hesitation. But if I tried the camera and it worked for what I like to do and the results looked good to me, I'm sure I'd buy it anyway.
I think the discrepancy is because the pixel pitch is being automatically calculated from the RAW image size (pixels) and sensor size. According to DPReview the cameras have exact same sensor dimensions (1/1.63 ", 7.89 x 5.81 mm, 0.45 cm²) so the actual sensor output taken by the cameras may be different even if the sensor is the same.
Looking at all those graphs One can see easily, that the Olympus and the Panasonic are completely equal. However, the overall score differs significantly. This is magic. - No, not really. It makes me question the usefulness of the overall score again.
Long time reader first time poster. I think DXOMark is a fine effort to objectively quantize image quality between cameras. What I miss is offsetting the results with the amount of light reaching the sensor at varying focal lengths determined by the maximum aperture. If data could be collected about this and combined with DXOMark result some truly interesting comparisons could be made. Personally I'd love to see high-end compacts compared this way such as Canon S90/S95, G10/G11, Pana LX5, Nikon P7000 and Oly XZ-1.
If anybody owns one of these cameras and wouldn't mind writing down max aperture as you go through the zoom I would be thankfull. In case this info is'nt displayed it could be extracted from EXIF data by taking a series of shots in aperture priority, taking a shot at every zoom step.