I think at the start these cameras will sell on megapixels alone, though when you add up the limited lens line, slow continuous autofocus and slow lenses, once you get past the occasional landscape photographer, anyone that needs faster lenses (which mean large a mounts with an adapter), they might as well stick with standard dslrs, because the price is not that different.
It seems to me that Sony throws a lot of stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Obviously they can make anything, but just as obvious they tend to switch gears in the middle of production.
If you bought an RX1 last week, it's still viable, but today it became more limited next to the A7 and the NEX has now become stop gap.
Where this leaves the A99 style cameras I don't know, because I'm not sure what they offer that is a step above this camera, other than faster lenses.
I've watched Sony for years in video and stills and though I find a lot of their cameras compelling, there always seems a what if attached.
I still believe there is a market for smaller mirrorless cameras that work in a professional mode, but to get there they need full lens sets, full features that rival the best of the standard dslrs.
Personally I think they'd have been better off if they made this camera an A mount rather than a E mount system, because there is enough legacy A mounts to cover the professional range and newer smaller lenses could be added as time went by, but just like in Video, Sony seems to hold back just a few features to keep the upline products viable.
Maybe in a few years the dust will settle and there will be just one high end line of cameras, but before then will Canon and Nikon respond and surpass whatever Sony eventually gets to?
Since we shoot a lot of motion imagery, my first thoughts go there, or better put go to the fact that nobody produces a combination camera system that does great stills AND great video.
The GH3 really is a video monster, but doesn't have the still quality of the A7 or even the new Olympus omd em-1. The upside is one set of m43 glass and a Oly and Pana will pretty much cover most all territory of stills and motion, though I'd love to see one camera do both equally well.
I just get the feeling looking at this camera that Sony thought they could out do the Olympus by using the magic FF word and more megapixels and stopped on that point.
IMO
BC
