I agree but it looks as though some don't see what we see --
cleaner, sharper images by LX2.
Cleaner yes; sharper, yes; more detailed, no. Many of the test images
posted from the link in the OP are lacking in fine detail; pix of modern
buildings are largely smooth surface without any fine scale structure.
It seems pretty clear to me
(and I grant this is unalloyed pixel peeping) that what the VIII is doing
is scrubbing the fine detail to erase chroma blotch and luma grain;
then taking the result and sharpening it. It's clearest in the trees,
the stone texture of the fountain
and some of the details in clothing and bicycles in the "kids playing
in fountain" image that the VIII gets confused in such situations
and interprets such things as leaves as noise grain if the leaves are small
enough, and then smears them. A similar story holds in the subway
image; fine details are being scrubbed in order to lower the
overall noise level.
One should also not confuse sharpness with detail. Sharpening takes
existing structure and enhances contrast on edges. Detail is structure
at the smallest spatial frequencies. Any of the scenes containing
fine scale detail have it erased in the service of cleaning up the noise.
I sincerely doubt that the LX2 jpegs
resolve more detail than the LX1,
in spite of its MP advantage. I will grant that they are
sharper
and scrubbed
cleaner .
And all of this is pixel peeping, I doubt whether any of it would
show up in a print. Furthermore, as many have said many times
the crucial test is the comparison of RAW format images.
--
emil
--
http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/ 
