Disappointed with Sony NEX-5: shall I go for a Lumix GF1?

I had a budget of 500 euros to buy a camera, I used to have a Canon DSLR a couple of years ago, and this time I wanted something slightly smaller and portable, but a high performance camera if not a DSLR (even though I could have bought a basic DSLR for this money, but portability really matters to me)
I considered Panasonic GF1, Olympus PEN, Sony NEX-5, Canon G12, Panasonic LX5 and Nikon P7000. I chose NEX-5 because of it's larger sensor than any of the above cameras mentioned, even though it was a tough choice between NEX-5 and GF1.
Now that I have used NEX-5 for a couple of weeks, the pictures look unsharp, over processed and soft to me. The auto focus is also sometimes not accurate. I can still return the camera to the shop for a full refund. I think results might improve if I use better quality lenses such as Nikon, but I then I lose autofocus feature and the camera will no longer be pocketable. I'd rather buy a DSLR than attaching a long lens to this thing.
If anyone here has used GF1 and NEX-5 or any of the cameras mentioned above, could you give me an opinion of which camera has better results than NEX-5?

Added (1). @ Jim A
Yes sir, I love Canon, but at the moment, Canon can't help me, since they haven't yet stepped into Micro four thirds. And brands are never "off" if the person knows what he/she is doing.
@ TOM
I have a pancake lens 16mm f2.8 (Sony kit lens). Yes I do mostly low light shooting, as I live in Finland, and sun hardly ever rises here in winters. I use mostly aperture priority setting, and high ISO's. But f2.8 is supposed to perform better in low light conditions. I also use tripod for any slow shutter speeds. Pictures are not terrible, but they are not up to my expectations sometimes. I compared with my friend's Nikon DSLR under the same settings and the difference in sharpness was evident.
I don't have many uploaded pictures, but here is one, you can see the blurry effect between the trees, I took this picture at 3200 ISO, shutter 3.5 sec, f2.8, NR on and without IS on tripod (actually placed the camera on a box of milk: D ).

So given all your complaints about "off" brands, don't you perhaps think you should stick with the best in the world - what you used to have - Canon?

A little more info would be helpful
What lens are you using?
It sounds like that something is not set properly, or there's not enough light for fast shutter speeds. If there's not enough light the shutter speed will be slow and that will give more chance for a blurred image due to camera shake.
What setting are you using?
Can you post a link to one of the images in question?
TOM

I'm wondering if there may be something wrong with your camera or the kit lens, which I assume you bought. Or are you solely judging images by looking at them 100% on a computer monitor?

I owned the Sony NEX-3 and was quite impressed with the image quality. I'm quite active in photography forums and have been very impressed with photos I've seen (they were processed. I believe all digital images need minor processing including sharpening (unsharp mask).

I reluctantly returned the NEX, not because I didn't like it but mostly because it was a too dumbed down camera for my liking. In a recent interview, Sony says the next NEX cameras will have more DSLR features (such as dedicated buttons for key settings, I presume).

You're looking at a wide range of fine cameras. Except for the Nikon P7000, I wouldn't hesitate buying any of the cameras you mentioned if it had the majority of features, including focal length, that I feel are important.

I have some sample photos taken with the NEX3 in my pbase gallery if you care to take a look:

http://www.pbase.com/gailb/nex3

I can't see the picture but I think it's the fault of the lens. Since you already know what you're doing (you did use the self timer with the camera on the box of milk, did you?), you might as well move to the four-thirds system. You won't run out of lens choices there. Yes, there are no "off" brands. I agree.

The lens kit and the future availability of 43's lens for the GF1 is solid a bit better than Sony's offering now and in the future. I have both devices and use the Sony more than the GF1. The Nex is solid in low light, equally as fast as the Gf1. Images on the GF1 are great but only to about 800 ISO. I shoot raw so noise is almost non existent after post processing in aperture or light room. My only grpie with the Sony nex is that there are no lens offering available that don't require an adaptor. Panasonic offerings look more promising though.