Jorgen,
What sort of shooting are you doing, because I had 6 or 7 batteries with me in Iceland and never got close to needing them all on a given day? While the shooting day was not super long, it was severely cold so the battery life was poor.
I too would prefer the Sony cams to have better battery life, but at the same time find it has next to no impact on 'photographic operations' for me personally. I just have to be a bit organised and have an 'end of day' routine for recharging, cleaning, image backup etc. I would not really consider these tiny batteries as 'items' in the same way as others as they are not complicated to handle or manage and you can pack them into any available crevice they are so small. I suppose the other upshot is redundancy. If one fails, its a small % of your overall power. If one of two larger batteries is lost or fails, them its a bigger problem.
For week long hikes and remote travel where there is no power for recharging, the A7's battery life would be a worry, for sure.
And 12 rolls of Velvia = 360 shots = 2 x A7 batteries (not 8), so you are still ahead with an A7!
I'm partly joking, and the OM-1 comparison was obviously that, although it is food for thought that so many more items are needed for photography nowadays. The problem for me, and probably others who travel to remote areas, is that I go to places that take a lot of effort to get to. Mostly, I would probably manage with a couple of batteries for an A7R II, but sometimes, there's simply no electricity available for charging or I have the chance to take photos at an event where it's simply tempting to take a lot of photos. So, I'm safeguarding.
Another kind of photography I do is motor sports, where around 2,000 photos per day is often the norm. There are others who shoot much more. You shoot all relevant cars at the first couple of laps, in burst mode, then trying to improve the shots throughout the race, and when there are 10 or more races in a day... 2,000 shots go very fast. If there's oil on the track, a fire, it starts to rain or whatever, hundreds of shots are fired within minutes to get the most spectacular one. 15 seconds to change battery is not an option. That will happen when the race leader crashes into a wall in spectacular fashion.
For some reason, camera manufacturers have for years optimised cameras and batteries to get as many shots per charge as possible. I simply don't believe that this has suddenly become irrelevant. For me, it's most certainly not, and when it is, I still feel more comfortable with a battery that covers me for 1,000 or 3,000 shots than one that can only manage 300.
I'm sure the A7R II is a fine camera, probably one of the best out there right now,
the best for many. But for me and a couple of others, it's only usable if they come up with a larger battery. I don't think it's wrong to point that out. Hopefully, Sony staff read photography forums