I'm not keeping the A7R either.
I've come to the conclusion that at the exponential rate of advancement with digital cameras, sinking more than $2,000 to $3,000 into a body is a fool's errand, or a rich man's indulgence.
These cameras have the life-span of a Mayfly ... I don't even have the A7R in hand yet, and there are rumors of a 54 meg revolutionary new sensor on the horizon ... and a new "organic sensor" ... and a sensor that exposes each pixel differently.
It's the two edged Chinese saying ... "May you live in interesting times." ... only "time" is now "wormhole" compressed. It only takes a couple of years at most to become a Luddite if you keep a camera longer than that
Of course, the one brand that seems immune to this is Leica. My S2 is proof that I don't do as I say However, honestly, that one exception I can justify by earnings with it, and that it does so much of what I have to do with lighting etc.. The CS leaf-shutter lenses made that possible. The MM is an anomaly also (kind of a longer term commitment to the B&W fetish). Can't make the same case for the M240, like Chuck, I can't make the leap to a luxury item that promises to go directly from cool, to on life-support in one step.
All the other stuff ...meh, the differences are hair-splitting ... smaller is better in general, and lenses are the real fun of all this. If I were a landscape shooter, I'm sure I could find something to bolt to this camera ... and even if the lens were larger, the body is not, so some "lug around" savings are realized anyway.
The next steps promise to be a doozy ... next gen EVF will come to fruition, sensor design will solve the niggles, DR will not even be an issue, and so on ... and prices will continue on a downward trend ... FF 36 meg will be less than $2K real soon.