This may be heresy, but here goes...

[Jerry_R]

I had u43, have NEX and M9. Jono said almost all I would say.

Problem with u43 and NEX is... wide angle. Simply 35mm 1.4 acts as 50mm (and f/2 in terms of DOF on NEX). There is also chromatic aberration, that does not exist on M9.

Attaching it to u43 gives 70mm (and f/2.8 in terms of DOF).

Wider fast M lenses cause often problems on crop sensors at edges area (soft, red corners, etc).

Whate else?

The same lens at NEX vs M9 - much more details from 2nd. The higher ISO the bigger difference. In all tests NEX controls noise better. I also see that after opening RAW in LR. But in reality - when I develop RAWs - I have better results from M9, more details (of course after downsizing).

Additionally you can shoot with longer shutter speed with M and focus faster, especially against NEX who misses EVF (but only in center of the frame, what can be important with fast lens from close distance).

I think one day - FF EVIL will appear. Without customized microlenses - it should give you a lot of what M9 gives - for focals 50mm and longer.

Many people see magic in photographs taken at f/0.95 or f/1.4. As you see - you won't get that magic at cropped sensor, as you won't get that DOF.

 

[Peterm1_Leica]

I have had an M8 for a few months and can only say that in that time, whether I am shooting Leica glass or Voigtlander glass the images I take seem to need less post processing than other images I have taken with DSLRs. And they turn out very nice indeed. Of course this suggests that there is something about the camera design, the sensor or the in camera image processing that contributes to this. It is not just the lenses although they may be the dominant feature. We know what some of that is - for example the Leica produces unusually sharp images direct from the camera due to the lack of moire filter. We also know that the M9 turns in better images in poor lighting conditions than the M8 due to its sensor size and better dynamic range - clearly the camera does add something. I cannot say that an M8 is better overall than a latest top end DSLR like the Nikon D700 as they have many "bells and whistles" lacking in the Leica. But the experience of shooting a basic camera is one that many people enjoy.

 

[Bob]

I have had an M8 for a few months and can only say that in that time, whether I am shooting Leica glass or Voigtlander glass the images I tae seem to need less post processing than other images I have taken with DSLRs. And they turn out very nice indeed. I cannot say that an M8 is better overall than a latest top end DSLR like the Nikon D700 as they have many "bells and whistles" lacking in the Leica. But the experience of shooting a basic camera is one that many people enjoy.

Try shooting almost anything without an AA filter and you will find a similiar experience concerning IQ. Handling and glass, however, as a different kettle of fish.
-bob

 

[JohnW]

I think it's more than the glass. I use my M9 with two Voigtlander lenses, and I definitely prefer its files over those from my 5DII and L lenses. I don't know the technical jargon to articulate the difference, but to my eye there's greater acuity or clarity or delicacy to the Leica files. By contrast the Canon files seem "heavy." Pretty subjective, I know, but the difference is very apparent to me.

John