Who said anything about real world "tests" Shashin? You added that "test" notion to other people's ideas of evaluative judgement, and then ran with it for four paragraphs. :ROTFL:
Some people are far more interested in how a camera performs in their world, not someone else's. It isn't a scientific test, it is an evaluation of how well a camera's gestalt, including the sensor, fits their aesthetic values. As previously said, One lens may scientifically outperform all those that came before it, yet many prefer the older optic for aesthetic reasons ... because we are making art, and that is subjective.
In Sean Reid's comparison, the M9 clearly showed more of a look and feel that I personally like over the new M's ... however, I am still interested in the new M because my friend Irakly used the camera to shoot with (not "test"), and is certain that it can deliver close to M9 "presence" while increasing imaging performance in other areas. Since we share similar aesthetic values, his word means more than 1,000 bench tests ... to me.
In short, I for one do not blame the DOX tests of anything ... they may hint at something worth exploring, but I've been burned by highly touted test results only to find the actual experience the tests seemed to promise to be aesthetically dismal and exceedingly disappointing.
Had Leica made a M-10 using a CCD that delivered a 2 stop increase in ISO performance while maintaining the same signature look and feel, I wouldn't even be pondering whether to get it. I'd have it. I do not need a camel M that shoots video, and can use R lenses which require CMOS. I need a M rangefinder that evolves the aesthetic I already had ... but increases the areas of darkness I can use it in. Nothing less, nothing more. Hopefully, the M can do that.
-Marc