So, I just wanted to get people's feelings on this, as I find the M9 to be possibly the most frustrating and rewarding digital camera I have ever used...
I find that I am constantly disappointed at the results when I initially look them over in Lightroom (but I know that LR is not the problem). In comparison, the images I make with the Sony a900 seem to make a much greater impact at initial inspection. I'm using Leica glass on both, (R lenses converted on the Sony), so there isn't much else to distinguish between the two except the camera body, and the way the sensors respectively render color and contrast, etc.
However... once I get into the images and dig in more, I often feel that the M9 images come into their own in a way that the a900 images do not. I wouldn't say that they are categorically better than the a900 images, but it seems that the images show greater improvement than the a900 images, and therefore result in possibly slightly better end result images.
Has anyone else noticed this with other camera pairs?
I feel that it forces me to be more careful at dismissing an image without working it over a little, whereas the really good images on the a900 are pretty apparent, which makes the editing somewhat easier.
The M9 is surely a sharper camera, even though it has fewer megapixels (no AA filter), and in some measure this could be where the real gains are made over the a900.