I used the XT2 and the A7r2. Yes, the A7r2 can catch the eye (...) but damn, nowhere near what can achieve the old D300s, the old D700 and even less D4/D500/D5 (canon is in the same league as Nikon, AF wise now). Probably why Canon or Nikon don't even argue or try to fight at a "marketing" level on the superiority of the DSLR AF system.
In the other hand, Mirrorless brands ALWAYS push on the "superiority" of their AF >> marketing. Some pros are seduced, rent or buy to try it out and often marketing is followed by deception. Then your bank account can be lubricated by brands to tell how much better the XT2 AF is, compared to the D4s, and I do not even talk about Sony. Level 125 master degree in lubrication.
By the end of the day, real people living from photography all day long since years, who invested in serious brands with serious pro service behind since decade, are considered like marginal people (on forums) because they are in the reality of the job. Yes, the CAM AF module in the D300s/D3/D700, old stuff, is even today more efficient than 90% of the mirrorless marketing landscape.
The AF system we can find in the D4/s/D750/D500/D5 ... is completely overkill considering most photographer's needs. It is just phenomenal.
One should prove me that 400 AF point are better than 51 even in action and at a moderate price. Equivalent ? Ok. Superior
this will vastly depend on the photographer.
Since forums (all) have been raped by zealous lubricated marketer accounts, it is now impossible to be serious or to speak about anything on internet.
Reality vs marketing.
