I'm still not sure I understand all the negativity towards this camera. I'm giving some serious consideration to purchasing it, and I've been trolling the web pretty thoroughly for the last week or two in hopes of finding some pictures. The biggest problem I've seen with what's out there has nothing to do with the camera and everything to do with the photographer. The fact that the pictures are underwhelming is simply because they are crappy pictures. For example, my guess as to why the bike is "not sharp" is because of hand shake and thin depth of field. The focus point looks to be possibly the front tire or upper handlebar/brake, but the overall depth of field is shallow, and I recognize some of the overall softness from looking at my own pictures where my hands were unsteady.
I see the same problem with the Monochrom. It's pretty clear that it's resolution capabilities are incredible, but the bulk of the images I've seen from it are bland to bad, which is not the camera's fault. Yet people still rave about how awesome it is. If you would really like a fair comparison as far as things like sharpness and noise are concerned, then it's well worth ponying up the money to subscribe to Sean Reid's reviews. His field pictures are also somewhat lackluster, but he's nothing if not thorough when it comes to testing out the technical side of his gear. There's a comparison between the Monochrom and the new M, and the Monochrom JUST eeks out a little more resolution and a little less noise than the new M. The M9 lags behind quite a bit.
I'm still waiting for the flood of quality images to hit the web, which I am fully confident will happen once the camera finally gets out there.
