This comment i slightly off topic but regarding investing long term into a a Sony system it's as safe a bet as any other system right now in that we do see third party vendors investing a lot more into them in the last 18 months than they have in the last 10 years or so. Much of that has to do with the impact of the FE system.
No Sony is not a perfect camera company by any means and there is a lot of room for improvements. All things considered I personally rather them update their bodies on a yearly basis than have to wait 2-5 years for them to fix the shortcomings or wait that long only to find the successor to the camera you have is NOT the camera that you want.
Sony DOES have a PR issue but it didn't just start with the E-mount. They need to go out of their way to state who they are, what they currently make, what they're building, what they're building towards, put more cameras in the hands of more people doing the types of work that are complimentary to what they are offering, etc... Mostly to shut up the detractors that spew ignorant opinions for whatever the reason. I understand the cameras aren't for everyone and do come it's the closest thing to a FF 35mm digital back.
When Sony made those wonderful products (that everyone seems to love now but didn't buy when they were new like the A850/900) there were plenty in the CaNikon camps crapping on them because they didn't have tilt/shift or other specialty lenses - which naturally made the system as a whole "crap." All of the basics were mostly covered but it didn't sell as well as the inferior camera systems (from a technological standpoint.) What they did have was AF Zeiss lenses and built in IBIS for every lens. We saw how far that got them in the DSLR market.
If you're looking for an investment talk to your financial planner... or buy a Leica M special edition and keep it sealed all cameras lose a lot of value in a short time.
P.S. Jorgen The D610 wasn't selling for much more than a D7100 around Christmas time in USA and it probably had a lot to do with the D750 which is similarly spec'd. Digital cameras lose value... Nikon puts out similarly spec'd bodies just as Sony, Canon, Panasonic, and Olympus does as well... it's not a big deal.
As an early and continuous Sony user, I have a slightly different perspective.
While Sony did produce a worthy FF camera in the A900/850, it fell short in key functional areas that had been well established by Canon/Nikon. For example, (lack of T/S lenses aside) a key error on their part was lack of Live View on the A900. Also, the initial A900 was prone to noise at lower ISOs than C/N. Etc. Things like that become a reason not to switch systems for many serious "system photographers".
All that aside, I bought into the Sony A900 as a system because the A mount lens line-up was relatively well fleshed out already and replaced my defunct Contax ND and Zeiss N AF lenses. Many key ZA focal lengths (fast f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4, f/1.8 primes), supplemented by G optics, made it a usable system for wedding/event/portrait. It was the Zeiss AF lenses that drew me in, NOT the cameras.
However, much as I wished and hoped, Zeiss has not produced a ZA35/1.4 to round out the ZA signature series ... which is a must have systems lens. ZA28/2 and ZA50/1.4 were added, but no ZA35/1.4!
So, I'm probably alone in this group in hoping the rumored 50 meg MAY be an A-Mount "flagship" replacement.
Financially, I don't care about camera depreciation, but I sure as hell don't want the substantial investment in ZA lenses to take a dive off a cliff for lack of a A mount continuation ... Like my Contax N experience.
I also agree with Annna T regarding the FE system.
It isn't just haters/detractors spewing ignorant opinions, or a PR issue with Sony. There was an inherent promise at least implied by A7/A7R. Like many others, my first reaction was ... "WOW! Finally, a digital Leica CL ... more supported by the little FE35/2.8 than the larger FE55/1.8. The very first thing many Leica M users went for was trying their M lenses. Disappointment ensued. Slow aperture biggish lenses, then substantial size creep with anything faster. Coupled with EFV lag, the expectation of a digital CL were effectively dashed.
Of course individual expectations aren't Sony's fault ... and the adaptability of so many "favored" legacy lenses from many makers DID meet other's expectations. Yet, those attributes do not make a cohesive small AF system with an optical signature that produces similar characteristics across the line for continuity of image from different focal lengths.
- Marc