For the past year or so I've been watching the spectacular developments in digital cameras. I've been wowed by the Nikon D800e, the Fuji XT-1, Oly EM-1, and most recently the Sony a7r.
When Michael published his Sigma DP2 Merrill review, I could not believe what I was seeing. Then, people like Quentin Bargate started posting phenomenal images made w/ the DP2 and DP3 Merrills. I bought both of them and have been blown away by the sheer image quality available (w/ all the warts and poor handling acknowledged, and its limited range of usefulness).
I also own a Sony a900 and some nice Sony Zeiss and G glass from 16mm to 400mm. I bought it the first year they were out. LOVE the OVF. Love the handling. Love the image quality below ISO 1600.
Where am I going with this? Well, in the last month I've rented a Fuji XT-1, and now have a Sony a7r here to try.
Are they more versatile? YES. Do they kick the a900's rear end at high ISO? YES. Is the image quality (absolute resolution notwithstanding) superior to my a900 up to ISO 1600? NO. The more I've tried these new wonder-cams the more I appreciate my a900.
I have tried to get used to the EVF. I know that I "need to" since that is probably where the whole industry is headed. But, I HATE it. Absolutely hate it. Today I shot the a7r side by side w/ my a900. No contest. Outside in any kind of daylight, the EVF is just plain inferior. I know there's a ton of info available on the display, etc., etc., but frankly the visual "clutter" interferes w/ my "seeing." The EVF is too contrasty, shadows black, image "grainy looking." The a900, clear, "real," huge view, no clutter. I guess I just don't get it.
Image files compared side by side in LR5x clearly show the additional resolution of the a7r, but have "nothing" on the DP Merrills (again acknowldeging the limitations of the Merrills compared to the vast flexibility of the Sony a7r), and frankly, except for the resolution difference, my a900 files compare very well indeed. I don't see anything in the a7r files that is "so much better" that it would make me want to buy one (again, at the normal ISO range that I typically use).
I'm a guy who shoots 90% of the time at base ISO, and rarely above 800. I use a tripod a lot of the time. The a900 suits me well. I don't chase kids around the yard, I don't shoot sports or other fast moving subjects, and I most often have a contemplative approach to my shooting.
I know I'm appearing to be somewhere between Luddite and troll! Am I alone? Up to the purchase of the a900, I'd been "chasing the technology" and really enjoying the huge leaps forward we saw in the late 90's and onward.
So, feeling a lot like a lone voice wailing in the wilderness, I sing the praises of the simplicity, usability, ergonomics, image quality, and that HUGE and lovely OVF in my a900.