>>4355638Sony is totally fine as long as you don't put a lot of value on
>adapting vintage rangefinder lensesThe cover glass on the sensor is too thick to use certain film lenses originally designed for rangefinders with the full FF field of view. For almost any rangefinder lens wider than 50mm, they shoot the light out very close to the sensor at a very steep angle and the thick glass cover on sony sensors distorts the image, adding softness, color shfits, and extra vignetting on the periphery. This wasn't a problem with film. Mirrorless lenses are designed for this glass and don't have problems. Even some digital leica cameras had issues with this because all digital sensors use some cover glass. One gen had not enough glass so the sensors rusted, another gen had a little too much. Hence their curved microlenses. The only japanese brand that can competently adapt leica lenses on FF is nikon, since they use ultra thin sensor coverings.
>Ease of useTo my knowledge, the shading correction feature isn't independent between video and stills mode. So if you want vignetting corrections in video, but don't want the quality issues from having it on in stills for landscape and backlit, flashless photography (colored banding in the corners when you push exposure more than 2 stops at base ISO), you need to constantly turn it on and off. This is niche for a lot of people. Or maybe since it's more visible when you don't pixel peep, sony users don't notice.
>Serious astrophotography"Star eater" still erases some stars because they look exactly like hot pixels to the algorithm. Sony only made the algorithm less aggressive. It's still mandatory if the shutter is open more than 3s.
>Travel and outdoor photographySony's weather sealing situation is like the one on olympus - the nicer bodies are weather sealed, the older/cheaper ones are not, and only their most expensive lenses (GM) are consistently WR otherwise its a crapshoot
