Joel,
Please bear in mind that photography is part art, part craft and not a scientific endeavor...thank God for that. Proof is a bit difficult for a subjective statement about one's opinion...my observation in 35 years of medical practice.
However when some very experienced photographers, some of them scientists, repeat the sentiment that it does run with the big guns one can feel confident that conditions favor the posited statement.
To whit:
Tim Ashley - "Get a shot correctly exposed and well focussed on one of the better lenses and I think, at a pixel level, it gives better results than anything I know."
Tim is very objective in his multiple criticisms of the camera....
Full article here:
Tim Ashley Photography | Leica M240 - The Final Inspection: Does it Pass Muster?
Mark Dubovoy - "When I first saw this image, I was stunned by the image quality on the screen. The white balance, sharpness, detail, color rendition, contrast, Dynamic Range, etc. were all superb.
This image looked much better to me than it deserved to, particularly since it came from "a mere 24 Megapixel camera".
Next step, I made a 24x30 inch print of the image. I was stunned again. The print looked like it might be the best print of this size I had ever gotten from a 35 mm size sensor."
Again there are many elements of the camera that are criticized in his review.
Full article here:
I WILL NOT BUY THAT CAMERA. I PROMISE...
I doubt that photographers at this level will be shooting test charts, brick walls or newspapers to compare quality....however both of the above have used Phase 160/180 and Leica S2...I assume they know a rose when they see one.
At the present I do not have a dog in this hunt...I have turned down three offers for the Leica M as my Leica Monochrom, Sony RX1 and Ricoh GXR M mount have given me time to look for proof of quality...and it seems to be more evident daily.
Regards,
Bob