I found something.
But before being accused of heresy I'm warning the most sensitive members that you will click at your own risk:
this is an interesting (yes, interesting) link to a Ken Rockwell's article on that matter.http://kenrockwell.com/leica/m9/sharpness-28mm.htm
(look at the sizes of the glasses in the introduction)
Knowing the Ken's Nikonmaniak, he would have done everything to put the crowne to his D3 but that is not what happened.
Anyway, for those who do not want to have a nervous breakdown with that link, here is a small conclusion extracted from his article:
Ken Rockwell:With the same money spent on lenses, the Leica easily wins.
The Leica is usually superior, or at least as good, as the best from Nikon and Canon at the same price.
When you also consider that the Leica weighs only a fraction as much as either camera or lens, it's a no-brainer to see which is the best for outdoor photography.
Even then, the Leica shot instantly, while I had to jack with menus to set the Nikon and Canon. Worse, I had to deal with foolish electronic controls to set manual aperture and shutter speeds on the Nikon and Canon, while with the Leica, all I did was turn the dedicated, click-stopped knobs. I shot the Leica in a tenth the time that it took to shoot either the Canon or Nikon.
Overall, the Leica wins because of its great sensor coupled with Leica's superior optics. Canon's 21MP sensor is about as good, but the end results only match if you could get lenses this good for the Canon — which you can't do at most focal lengths.
Even if Nikon' slightly higher-on-paper resolution D3X was relevant here, it would also be limited by Nikon's optics, just like the D700 and D3 as shown above.
Ps: I'm aware who is Ken, till wich point he can be trustable and what's to take and what's not to take. This particular article is trustable.
And before the scientists and DoXers will come with their numbers and equations argumentation in order to disqualify
the testing as always, and allowing myself to follow Guy Mancuso's and others steps about that the only trustable instruiment is still the eyes, although it
depends I guess on the grade of training from the eyes in question, I would say that I had the chance to examinate some M9 files
in a friend's house and I saw the same as Ken (and as many others). And I'm sorry but the D3 or anything from Canon stays behind IMO, with good glasses of course.
Remember that the M9 is another tech, much closer to MF.
Remember also that photographers like Michael, Don...are daily working with the best high-end gear MF+ LF, and therefore used to very high IQ.
Many really demanding photographers are curently using it, in preference of the Canikons. So there might be a good reason for that.
The first that comes into my mind is the availability to mount the best glasses ever built by any manufacturer in that format.
Then, no AA, no menu hassle, just the control that are needed, chalenging just enough, and in a lightweight package that could nearly compeat with this m4/3 format
and with a built quality that does not claim weather seal but that could put to shame any professional dslr today.
Oh yes, and with a discrete shutter noise and an unmatched elegance compared to the D3, 1D, 5D heavy tanks.
That is a lot to like about it.
And if you are an urban photographer, just experimenting the people reaction compare to a standard dslr. The M is friendly to the others, the dslr is agressive.
I could see clearly on field the differences with my friend. The M9 is THE camera for urban reportage.
And that can be the difference between coming back home with some keepers or not. You can get very close with an M and a wide lens.
Try that with your D3 or your 1D...
I will end this parenthesis mentionning that after a thread I wrote here about the R9 digital back, apparently "obsolete",only 10mp... I received some enthousistic letters from R9 users saying
that people where actually seeing differences in prints, even compare to the 24MP Sony 900, all in favor of the Leica back.
In other words, that people could see differences in print and the Leica prints where more impacting, despite the lower resolution.
I've been critic with Leica after the S2 choice, but again, if I had to go on a desert island with just a gear, that would not be Canon neither Nikon.