There is a lot of difference in area from a 1/1.8" sensor (38 mm2) and a 2/3" one (58 mm2), as well as the fact of a 20% less resolution in the C-8080.
I must confess that I usually only saw my photos in the LCD (Dell FP2001). Some "average" print services show less dynamic range (more area in shadows or burnt) compared to a good quality LCD (many LCDs aren't good enough).
Note that Apple 30 inches LCD (and future ones will have even better resolution for an affordable price, it is a matter of time) allows to show 2560x1600 pixels (4 Megapixels). A 3840x2400 LCD (nowadays only prototipes) will have 9 Megapixels. In the future, pixels will matter and specially GOOD pixels at 100%; next SED display generation will in fact reach/outperform print quality, including in terms of colour gamut.
Note that for a 4x6" print a simple 2 megapixels crop from is enough. Small or medium prints don't explode the full potential... the better your photos appear at 100% in the monitor, the better they'll appear in the next devices. Print paper is not an ecological nor the best future high-quality media.
I prefer a 5 true megapixel camera with 5 good true megapixels, instead of a 10 megapixel camera plenty of noise and noise removal artifacts. I usually shot jpeg (C-8080 is slow in raw) but C-8080 jpeg files do have already a strong noise reduction in ISO 50 (if you compare a raw file converted with no noise reduction with dcraw, with a raw file converted with the same tool from a DSLR, the C-8080 ISO-50 is like ISO-400 on a Canon EOS). However, are pretty usable, even seen at 100% (except in the darkest areas). I prefer not to think how FZ-50 raw files will appear at ISO 100... (I insist: converted with dcraw -w, without noise reduction, the ONLY recommended test to compare sensor performance).