M9 Sensor Qualities

[YYV_146]

I wish Leica the best too.

I started thinking about the 11 digital cameras I've owned and used in my work since my first DSLR, the nikon D1. I've owned 5 CCD cameras or backs and 6 CMOS DSLRs. Let me start by saying I'm very critical of color due to client requirements. In the past couple of years I've produced custom color profiles for each of my cameras under each lighting condition I shoot under. I apply these to my files during raw processing. Currently I shoot a Nikon D800, Nikon DF, M9 and Hasselblad with a CRV39 back. The CFV39 and M9 are CCDs and as you know the Nikons are CMOS. My previous DSLRs were canon 1 series digital with CMOS and early in my digital work I has a 1D Canon, D1x nikon and D1 with CCDs.

In my experience there is a difference in color rendering between CCDs and CMOS. I find very different color outputs between the same makers different models like the D800 and Df. The same was true of Canond models I had.

Producing and apying custom profiles creates more uniform colors between cameras but there are still distinct cor differences. I find the D800 after apying the profile to have very accurate colors particularly reds and blues. Saturation and purity are excellent. The D800 by far has the best dynamic range of any digital camera I've used. Next the M9 after applying the profile has very easing color with very nice greens. The look is certainly different than the Nikon but I wouldn't say it's better, it's just different. The m9 dynamic range is poor by current standards and especially compared to the D800 and noise is terrible compared to both Nikons.

Now comes the Hasselblad CFV39 back. The essentially FF back has much better color than any of the other cameras before and after the profile is applied. It's especially fine after apying the profile. Color purity is spectacular as is color depth due to its true 16 bit color capture. It like the M9 has no AA filter which is a double edged sword. Moire can be a serious problem with both cameras. Dynamic range with the CFV39 is around 12.5 stops vs 14.5 with the D800 and just guessing from experience I'd say the M9 is around 9 stops. I seem to have read that too. The diwnside of the CFV39 is noise at high ISO as is a problem with the M9. It was a problem with all of the CCD cameras I've owned vs CMOS cameras.

One thing I noticed with my 1Ds and 1DsII and other Canon CMOS cameras I've used is a particulate bad red rendition. Even after profiling the reds were biased to the yellow side. IMO they produced a very poor red.

As to the M9 having been state of the art and smoking any CMOS, I seriously have to disagree. This sensor was never an outstanding performer I any respect at the time it came out or after. It IMO is below average in all respects but does produce a pleasing image. This is just my opinion based on my API application. To me and the reason I bought the M9 was because of wide open performance of the current crop of lenses. The current leica glass is exceptional even in the corners wide open. This is the reason I purchased the system and the only reason I tolerate it's issues.


It seems like everything In life is a compromise including cameras and sensors. You select the gear that serves you best and work around the deficiencies.
Ymmv

I agree. CMOS sensors seem to struggle with green, and Sony sensor typically have severe red channel overflow. The M9's greens are vastly better, but I'm not sure if I like the M9 CCD's weak reds to Sony's.

But you learn to work around those things. It's one of the reasons I loan/borrow cameras for my work - I try to step back from files I've probably used too much and grown accustomed to.

Personally I find the wide angle lenses I use tolerable on the A7 (21lux, 35lux asph and CV 12mm 5.6). If I really wanted to do critical landscape work, I think I'd go for a WATE/A7r combo instead of buying an M9 or M type 240. The 21lux is plenty sharp from f2.8 onwards, but I find the field curvature and sharpness flux across the frame undesirable unless I shoot at f5.6-f8.

 

[YYV_146]

So tell me where are all of these other camera companies going to go to get their sensors if or when Sony goes bankrupt?

Sony's imaging department is posting a profit. At the very worst, they'll break away from the consumer electronics and become a standalone camera maker/cmos FAB. You need to understand that Sony is like a small country - the internal bits don't really work together or even communicate with each other, and share very little except the four-letter name. Fine with me.

And of course, nobody in the camera world is doing well these days. Canon makes a profit on underinvesting in research, Nikon, Olympus and Panasonic have all seen sales decline.

I'm not affiliated with Sony in any way, but their camera branch in China sends me equipment to review on very generous loan cycles. So I like the company, but nothing more.

All I can read into this thread is the OP is jealous of all of us Leica shooters who support a company that makes the only digital RF camera to date. We really enjoy making photographs with our "inferior" cameras and willing to pay a premium over the competition for the experience.

Get over it and be happy with whatever you enjoy making photographs with.

Really? I don't anyone is jealous of anything here. The OP doesn't say that Leica cameras automatically suck - just that the sensor is outdated. In a previous post I applaud Leica for building their cameras like tanks and paying attention to every design detail, but frankly, the only reason I'm not holding an M right now is Leica's sub-par sensors.

I enjoy RFs and good quality mechanics - but that is subjective. What the OP is arguing for - and perhaps rightly so - is an objective question. There is no "opinion" in the question "is a sensor good or not". It has nothing to do with handling, very little to do with what kind of images you can make with the camera, but important to some of us, because we need to deliver images at a certain quality.

I've been told that the car analogy is tiresome, but here it is again: the OP is saying that a car is fuel inefficient, has some flaws in design and build. You are saying that the car is a great car and the OP thinks it's a bad car. But an inefficient or flawed car is not a bad car. You and you can determine if the car is a good car to you, but the OP can nonetheless be quite right in pointing out the car's problems.

When the Sony A7(r) has a system of lenses specifically designed for that body (and I'm not talking about adaptor this or adaptor that) that encompasses what Leica has already established and has simplified the back end of the camera where I don't need a 200+ page manual to figure it out....Then maybe...

When I got my first Sony E-mount camera in 2010 it took me all but five minutes to figure out how to use it. The operations and designs of Sony bodies is amazingly consistent. Use one of the more recent Minolta SLRs, and you can see how similar it is to the latest A mount camera. The E-mount bodies used to have quirky menus, but now the system is unified between the two mounts, and if you have used any Sony camera since their DSLR days, IMO you wouldn't need to go through the manual to use an A7.

And the notion that Sony has little legacy support is, frankly, nonsense. The Minolta 85mm F1.4 I used to own works perfectly on the A7. I get state-of-the-art AF, full manual override, A/S modes - as much functionality (if not more) as I would get from using the lens on a film Minolta SLR. Maybe not as much legacy support as Leica, but the A mount is relatively young compared to the M mount. Compared to Canon which left most of its pro users in the dust when they ditch FD and Nikon which has an extremly confusing legacy system, Sony's approach is nothing short of beautiful.

It takes two steps to use any old minolta lens on an A7. Mounting the (one available) motorized adapter and mounting the lens, and you get full functionality with any Minolta lens since 1985.

 

[Lss]

And whatever the reason someone buys and uses a Leica FF body, it should not be because of image quality.

Depends on what you mean by image quality here. If you are talking about sensor quality, I agree. If you are talking about the quality of your final image, I could not disagree more. The Leica M9/Monochrom/M may or may not be a good choice for any individual.

I am quite happily using my M8, and it usually matches or exceeds what I get out of my Sony RX1R. There is little doubt which camera is significantly ahead in terms of sensor performance. Therefore the RX1R image should always outdo a corresponding M8 image with a 24-28mm lens, right?

 

[YYV_146]

My M9-P doesn't have a red dot. There's more to photography than physics. When I shoot in low-light I often use timing to overcome shortcomings of the high ISO capabilities. You see some of are ACTUAL photographers. You tell ME that my M9-P can't possibly be used in low light because ****ing DxO Mark says so. But I have photographic proof. I shoot concerts for a LIVING. I use my M9-P in some of the worst possible lighting conditions and for some inexplicable reason contrary to what DxO Mark says I get perfectly usable images. Hell, I even get great low-light images with my M8.

Frankly, none of these are really "dark" locations. The people are static except for the boxer shot (which is amazing, BTW), and you aren't using extremely fast lenses - I would guess F1.4 and slower? The boxer shot is what I would consider "very good" light - you have flood lamps directly on the subject, which is a luxury by available light standards.

"Dark" is when you shoot at ISO 5000 with an F1.2 lens, then push two stops in post to get acceptable brightness. The M9 simply can't do that - I've worked with M9 files - the camera cannot go beyond ISO 4000 in equivalent, everything breaks down to mush when I try to push iso 1600 files that far. I also shoot concerts - and it takes the combined effort of fast lenses and very high performing sensors to deliver prints at shutter speeds high enough to capture motion.

Shot with the NEX-7, ISO 1600, 1/80s with F2 and lightly pushed (~1/2 stops). The A7 did not exist back then but if I had one, I would have been able to use ISO 4000 and 1/200s, which would have made getting this shot a LOT easier. Note that this is a last-gen, 24MP APS-C body, and to my experience it outperforms the M9 in the high ISO department.

 

[YYV_146]

Depends on what you mean by image quality here. If you are talking about sensor quality, I agree. If you are talking about the quality of your final image, I could not disagree more. The Leica M9/Monochrom/M may or may not be a good choice for any individual.

I am quite happily using my M8, and it usually matches or exceeds what I get out of my Sony RX1R. There is little doubt which camera is significantly ahead in terms of sensor performance. Therefore the RX1R image should always outdo a corresponding M8 image with a 24-28mm lens, right?

Yes - I am talking about sensor quality. Image quality has a lot to do with how you see the world through the finder, and how people perceive your camera. One of the reasons I like mirrorless/RF - you get far less intrusive images than if you are blasting away with a DSLR.

People buy M cameras for the experience, and I 100% respect that. It's a good way of thinking about photography, as opposed to trying to argue that the camera one owns is the single best one in the world. If the M240 is cheaper I would definitely buy one to play with the 35-75mm range. But as enamored of Leica as I am, I won't pay $7,000 for it - $3k definitely, maybe $5k, but never $7k.

 

[__--]

..."Dark" is when you shoot at ISO 5000 with an F1.2 lens, then push two stops in post to get acceptable brightness. The M9 simply can't do that - I've worked with M9 files - the camera cannot go beyond ISO 4000 in equivalent, everything breaks down to mush when I try to push iso 1600 files that far. I also shoot concerts - and it takes the combined effort of fast lenses and very high performing sensors to deliver prints at shutter speeds high enough to capture motion...

It's quite obvious that you cannot push an M9 file shot at ISO 5,000 two stops because the DR at this speed is zilch, nor is it desirable to push M9 files shot at ISO 1,600. Earlier I provided a link to this thread, which describes the technique of shooting the M9 at ISO 640 and pushing in LR4 or LR5. Within that thread there is a link to Jim Kasson's excellent blog work in testing and explaining why this technique works. The thread also has many examples of the color rendition one can get from the M9 using this technique — and post #31 on page 2 has the steps suggested for shooting and processing for this technique. As in shooting and developing film, technique in shooting digital (obviously) can also matter.

MITCH ALLAND/Potomac, MD
Download links for book project pdf files
Chiang Tung Days
Tristes Tropiques
Bangkok Hysteria
Paris au rythme de Basquiat and Other Poems

 

[hepcat]

I am glad some people here think the red dot gives their M9 low light capabilities, because the laws of physics say those shots are missing critical exposure data from an inferior sensor. The DxO marks of the M9 means it has to miss far more shots compared to even some of the APS-C's of the same generation simply because its read noise and data numbers are so dismal. That affects ALL shadow shots with the M9.

Is that the value in the product you were looking for?

But from an engineering standpoint, the Leica image quality results are...missing...just like the RAW data reads from sub-par sensors. This apples to the S2 where one spends 6x the price of a D800 and the D800 eats the S2 for lunch. All that Leica glass does nothing for the S2. It does a lot for Leica's bottom line, but photographers eventually must wonder where their data is going.

The delta between Leica's IQ engineering output and its sales price has widened to an extreme we do not see with any other brand. The T uses a 3 year-old Sony sensor. Excellent engineering on the body. Top engineering on the lenses.

I am always interested in why some people are SO strident in their criticism of Leica, especially the digital bodies. Yes, they're expensive compared to Japanese digital bodies. Leica lenses are outrageously expensive especially compared to modern Japanese glass. But in form factor they have no peer. If you want a digital rangefinder camera, you either pay the price of admission to Leica or you don't shoot a digital rangefinder camera. That's your choice. For me, shooting digi-M bodies (even my M8) is a no-brainer. They work for me. If Sony, Nikon, Canon, or VC made a competing M-mount, full-frame rangefinder body, I might seriously look at them, but they don't.

As far as your technical arguments about sensor engineering, I was shooting tri-x in Leicas when it was rated at ASA 320 and Summiluxes were made of unobtanium. I shot with Summicrons. I know about what it takes to make low-light images. I made sale-able digital images with the Olympus E-10 as my first "pro" digicam. I appreciate the file quality that the M9P gives me. DXo testing is interesting, but it's not making images. I like the quality of the M9 images regardless of how the geeks translate test equipment squeaks and squawks.

Not to be misunderstood; I appreciate the sensor development that is taking place, and one day I may benefit from it again, but the CCD sensor in the M9 is the best I've ever owned, does an amazing job for me, and makes sale-able images for me. Is it the "best" on the market? "Best" is subjective. It works for me. I don't really care what else is out there right now. Affordable VC large aperture primes make up my low-light arsenal. I don't know what more I could ask for. I can make images I'd never dreamed of in my ASA 320 Tri-X days. If Leica sensors don't seem to have the performance you need, then it's not the right tool for you. Go shoot what you think will do the job for you.

And yes, we pay the costs of marketing when we buy Leica, and those costs are spread over fewer units... but I seem to recall Ashton Kutcher hyping Nikon, and Canon has hired shills in the past as well. Again, as long as they're doing what they need to do to continue developing and selling a pro-level rangefinder camera, I'm a happy camper and yes, I'm getting the value out of my bodies I paid for.

Sorry, but I just don't understand what you're on about here, and especially at the volume you seem to be at. If it's that you can't afford to buy one, I can empathize. It is painful to drop that kind of cash on a camera. I know. I have a couple of them, and I had to buy them used.

If it's not that, then please explain what you ARE on about?

 

[Richard G]

Agree with Hepcat, of course. Just because the manufacturer of a camera I want to own has unattractive advertising policies, doesn't mean their product is not good. Naturally with the Monochrom, they had to think through the markeing pretty carefully. That department must have thought the project developers and Dr Kaufmann were mad. The actual product has no red dot and the only place it says Leica is pressed into the top cover in the same colour. That is not bling. That is not a loud hello from Leica. That is what is called understated. The Monochrom produces astonishing files. It is such an unexpected camera to have existed at all. I forgive Leica any marketing trick they like for making such a bold product.

And then I look at a few of my black and white files in Lightroom and tell myself all over again that it was 'worth it' only to find that those files, some of them, are actually out of the M9. Keith started a thread on M9 black and white here, and more than a few of us began to wonder why the hell we'd shelled out for the Monochrom as well. The M9, whatever, it is, really is a marvellous and another unexpected development in 35mm photography. A month before release there were seasoned experts dismissing the speculation of such a full frame digital camera being possible. Have a look at Hausen's work with both cameras on this forum.

The M9 and the Monochrom are cause for praising Leica not caning them for their marketing indulgences. I still use an M2. I don't mind having 5 year old technology in my digital cameras if it does what I want. I still use my more than 10 year old 4.0MP Coolpix 4500. Still produces lovely images. Progress is not always worth it.

 

[mfunnell]

No Leica, not even the S-series, has a truly up-to-date sensor.

OK. So it doesn't have a truly up-to-date sensor. Does that matter? My only answer would be "maybe".

I know my Canon 5DmkI doesn't have a truly up-to-date sensor. How could it? Yet I can take photographs I like with it. Oddly, some others find they like some of my photographs. Perhaps that's because they don't know it's sensor is obsolete. If so, I doubt that I'll tell them.

In fact, I suffer no psychological pain from knowing that somewhere someone (by now a great many someones) is using a camera with a more up-to-date sensor than mine. Which is fortunate because it's in the nature of the digital beast that the moment you buy a camera it's sensor technology is either obsolete or soon to become so. Yet I see no physical mechanism by which all the photographs taken with now outdated sensors are immediately plucked from their frames, albums or shoe-boxes, degraded, then put back without any disturbance other than their newly inferior image quality. In fact, I just looked at a photo I took with my Canon 300D (aka original Digital Rebel) and it still looks the same to me. (Full disclosure: I used good paper, pigment ink and it lives behind glass.)

...Mike

 

[CrisR]

Sure is a lot of "stop liking what I don't like" in this thread.

Cameras are like cars, there's a thousand variants for every taste, interest and bank balance. Most are incomparable with each other, even those that appeal to the same demographics.

Lets compare my car to the latest Audi R8 - they're both 2 seater and turbocharged. But mine gets higher MPG and costs less. I win. Audi should be ashamed of themselves and simply produce clones of other company's products because of my highly selective use of stats and opinion 🙂

Back on topic? Well, my M9 is the best camera I've ever owned, and nothing else on the market tempts me, from any manufacturer *shrugs* guess I'm all about the bling and Heat magazine.

 

[dcsang]

When someone points out the issues/problems/concerns about one camera (or another) doesn't mean that person is somehow upset with you personally or your choice of camera brand. If you're getting perturbed when someone points out issues they see with a thing/camera you may use or own, then maybe it's time to distance yourself from that thing/camera a wee bit.

You are not your camera.

Peace,
Dave

 

[hepcat]

When someone points out the issues/problems/concerns about one camera (or another) doesn't mean that person is somehow upset with you personally or your choice of camera brand. If you're getting perturbed when someone points out issues they see with a thing/camera you may use or own, then maybe it's time to distance yourself from that thing/camera a wee bit.

You are not your camera.

Peace,
Dave

I think that most of us are just curious about what would lead someone to be SO far askew about a product that they need to go on a public tirade on a site that caters to specifically that kind of camera. You're right... it's just a camera for heaven's sake! There's a bunch of products out there I won't give a second look to because of the eronometrics, or the native skin tone balance or whatever but I don't feel the need to make a diatribe about that camera or brand.

And that was kinda my point in my posts... if it works for you, great. If it doesn't, find something that does, but do we really need to hear repeatedly how, on paper, it shouldn't work for me either?

 

[Aristophanes]

My M9-P doesn't have a red dot. There's more to photography than physics. When I shoot in low-light I often use timing to overcome shortcomings of the high ISO capabilities. You see some of are ACTUAL photographers. You tell ME that my M9-P can't possibly be used in low light because ****ing DxO Mark says so. But I have photographic proof. I shoot concerts for a LIVING. I use my M9-P in some of the worst possible lighting conditions and for some inexplicable reason contrary to what DxO Mark says I get perfectly usable images. Hell, I even get great low-light images with my M8.

I never once said that the M-9 or any camera cannot be used in low light. That is your hyperbole trying to twist the argument.

I said that the laws of physics apply regardless of brand or model and that the M9 sensor is very weak at capturing shadow detail, especially at higher ISOs. The M9 sensor, despite being FF, captures less data than it should because Leica sources their sensors from a behind-the-times manufacturer.

I am glad you can use your M9 as you see fit. That's nice. Issue is a D5200 can do better than your M9. Technical IQ, being a completely finite and measurable quality, is not in the M9's favour. And the D5200 can get more information to the in-camera processor using lesser glass yet STILL retain far more information in the signal. You are working far harder than necessary to get your data. That's what you buy with a digital camera: something that produces data. Your work is excellent. With a superior sensor, I am sure it would be even better.

My argument is that the M-series digital uses sub-par sensors compared to the market average for the price of the system. Unfortunately for Leica users, this means that optimum glass transmits photons to an inferior photodiode system. Technical IQ is only optics + filters + photodiodes + algorithms. One weak link and IQ terminally goes to the lowest common denominator of that sequence.

This whole thread got started discussing the new T Leica model. I was wondering if, in the Blackstone, Hermes, and Saatchi and Saatchi era for Leica, whether they would be able to break free from their pedestrian sensor constraints and get that part of the engineering spectrum rightfully back to where the rest of the engineering prowess is on glass and bodies.

Instead, Leica appears to be doubling down on the status card with the T. They are recycling an older Sony sensor. It is just....odd given the pedigree of the company. If there were shareholders they'd be speaking out, especially institutional ones. The marketing is driving, not the engineering. So Leica can sell the RF crowd regardless because they have no other option, and that crowd will pay full market price for lesser IQ given the breach in the technical IQ chain. IN the meantime Leica really only answers to the bling crowd because they will buy on status regardless.

It's just kind of sad to see such engineering prowess and a long history of excellent filed use get shunted aside for a Blackstone-driven luxury market drive.

 

[CrisR]

One person's problem with a product (it doesn't go very fast, it doesn't cost very much) is another's reason to buy it. If everyone thought the same way about products, there would only be one car, one camera and one phone and everyone would be happy.

Ah the dreams of utopia...

 

[Mcary]

All I can say is I must have taken a huge gulp of Leica Kool-Aid as I have zero interest in owning/using any small format camera but the Leica M series.

 

[Aristophanes]

I think the OP must work for Sony and is worried about his job future

Hah!

In my day job I have been shorting and criticizing Sony for years. Well over a decade. No other company in tech or retail has floundered away such an empire and asset base through corporate mismanagement as Sony. It's quite sad, really. Their vertically integrated structure was a tour de force of concept to product. When they ventured into media and became overly reliant on the big hit (Playstation) a once proud company lost its way.

That said, there are diamonds in the rough. Sony Industrial has been on a tear lately and is the dominant force in photography now. Their R&D and capital spending have been superlative. They've fostered the right strategic alliances and become the critical supply source for a lot of critical silicon. Everyone else is playing catch-up. They've built a solid half decade lead in their products and production capacity.

 

[rivercityrocker]

Frankly, none of these are really "dark" locations. The people are static except for the boxer shot (which is amazing, BTW), and you aren't using extremely fast lenses - I would guess F1.4 and slower? The boxer shot is what I would consider "very good" light - you have flood lamps directly on the subject, which is a luxury by available light standards.

"Dark" is when you shoot at ISO 5000 with an F1.2 lens, then push two stops in post to get acceptable brightness. The M9 simply can't do that - I've worked with M9 files - the camera cannot go beyond ISO 4000 in equivalent, everything breaks down to mush when I try to push iso 1600 files that far. I also shoot concerts - and it takes the combined effort of fast lenses and very high performing sensors to deliver prints at shutter speeds high enough to capture motion.

I hate when people try to tell me what the lighting situation is in my photographs. YOU WEREN'T THERE. The light looks good at the boxing ring, but it WASN'T. It was DARK. There was some light there, but it looks a lot brighter in photos than it was in real life. That's part of the processing. The people are static? No they are moving. A LOT. That's where technique comes into play. You have to press the shutter release at that perfect moment when they are in between two motions, which is typically less than a half-second of time.

And since when is f/1.4 considered slow? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. So you've worked with M9 files? How extensively? I routinely push my M9 files to 6400 or more. When I was young I worked at a Ferrari dealership detailing the cars. I drove hundreds of them around the block. That doesn't make me an expert on how Ferraris handle at high speed any more than you working with a few M9 files makes you an expert on what the M9 can accomplish in truly capable hands.

Which brings me to another point. How many concerts have you ACTUALLY photographed? How many with the M9? I have shot THOUSANDS of concerts in all kinds of venues and all kinds of lighting, from bars to stadiums. I've shot over a hundred concerts using an M8 or M9. Just because you took a Sony in to shoot the local bar band a few times doesn't make you qualified to lecture me on how concert photography is done with an M9.

When you get as much experience shooting concerts with an M9 then come talk to me and tell me what's what. Your opinions on the subject aren't valid because you don't have the experience to back up your claims.

 

[dcsang]

*sigh*

What's sad is resorting to name calling..

Come on guys - really?

Dave

 

[Duane Pandorf]

This pretty much sums up what comes to my mind when I consider "sensor IQ" compared to "user interface" and why Leica can command a premium.

New In-Depth Leica T Review

One of my customers came into the store today with a Sony A7. I've obviously handled these before, but was able to put it right next to the Leica T. The two cameras sitting next to one another underscored the major differences in a second.

The buttons and dials and controls on the Sony were scattered and haphazard, seemingly without reason for being placed where they were. There were three dials on top of the A7 that all had different physical design/construction. The three function buttons were just placed where there was room at different locations. Other controls were also of differing styles and placements. Then, of course, there was the very audible shutter sound. It just felt as if there were too many cooks in the kitchen and no overriding design philosophy. They were just chasing specs and looking to re-purpose existing parts from other cameras.

Perhaps many might not consider a clean design and user-friendly interface revolutionary, but it really is so completely different than anything else out there, not just Leica.

For me, how a camera feels to use and how I experience picture taking with it plays such an important part of how I evaluate it. I love shooting with the M and the S partly because how I feel using them. How they feel in my hand. What the experience looking through the viewfinder is like. How they sound when I take a shot. Of course, image quality is always a factor, but the T produces stunning images with great glass. I have no complaints there. Could it be higher resolution? Maybe, but I never felt the image quality lacking. With image quality out of the way, with great lenses, pleasing color reproduction, etc.I am left to focus on the physical interaction with the camera. And it is different. And very fun while being entirely practical and useful. This is rare. This is, for me, revolutionary.

 

[Aristophanes]

The data is unequivocal, empirically tested, and definitive.

A Nikon D5300 will capture more data under all circumstances than the M9. Much more, despite sensor size.

The digitization of photography has homogenized the capture of photons.

Technical IQ cannot be "boring". It's all just data points quantified. There is no "character" to a sensor. You either have a certain strength Bayer array or AA filter or you do not. You either have a certain signal to noise ratio or you do not. They are all finite and perfectly quantifiable right down to photon and electron counts. It really is just math.

A person with a much lower priced consumer camera system can replicate your work, and even exceed it on pure data capture. Maybe you have a technique or shooting style that you like and think the Leica RF is worth paying a $7,000 premium for, but it is definitively not giving you better data input than the D5300. If your job is to give clients the best files you can, the Leica is not competitive. This is why Mr. Schulz has spoken about why Leica is no longer in favour amongst photojournalists and why Leica as a brand is actively not pursuing the same market you seem to be working in. You are defending what Leica's main spokesperson is not endorsing as Leica's motivation in product development or use anymore. You can be as fervent at defending your work as you want, but your own brand's spokesperson is actively moving away from your own position.

Leica mechanical engineering= excellent.
Leica lass = excellent.
Digital files = mediocre at best.
Value of all those = not very good.