Material is gathering that the Nikonistas have a shared opinion that the a7r is just a small and rather poor digital back, suitable only for tripod work sitting in front of their lenses. Mr Holmes and Mr Chambers have written about using it this way; Mr Hogan recommends the a7 not the a7r, and I read that Mr Borg feels this way too:
'If I want small size and weight and going to handhold A7r is out of question. The way I see A7r -- it is more of a slightly crippled digital back than a camera.'
I mention this as it just might be at the heart of the matter, poorly founded and misguided as the claims are. I have the feeling that the establishment were prepared to grant that Sony made a reasonable 24Mp camera in the a7 - they had been softened up by the RX1 maybe - but that something as outrageously good as the a7r is just a bridge too far. So the fault finding moved into overdrive and has not let up. The program seems to lack any sense of proportion WRT other cameras' foibles, of which there is no shortage.
'If I want small size and weight and going to handhold A7r is out of question. The way I see A7r -- it is more of a slightly crippled digital back than a camera.'
I mention this as it just might be at the heart of the matter, poorly founded and misguided as the claims are. I have the feeling that the establishment were prepared to grant that Sony made a reasonable 24Mp camera in the a7 - they had been softened up by the RX1 maybe - but that something as outrageously good as the a7r is just a bridge too far. So the fault finding moved into overdrive and has not let up. The program seems to lack any sense of proportion WRT other cameras' foibles, of which there is no shortage.