>>3855866Nice try at being subtle with your Sony shilling. :) Jokes aside. I still wonder e.g. the Sony RX100 has barely improved in image quality with its successors, meaning even the biggest switch to a BSI CMOS from the RX100 to the RX100 II has had hardly any significant impact.
After all, I thought intuitively that with such limited sensors in particular, the new technology should be apparent with an improvement.
>>3855574>Very rarely do you see someone hating on sony who's shot extensively with like, an a7r4 and a 70-200 GM.I think a lot of the criticism is also simply due to people who are only temporarily with Sony and then already invest in the latest bodies, but not in the system and not in the lenses.
I think such people who switch often have to learn not only an unfamiliar camera, but also an unfamiliar camera paradigm. My personal summary as such a person is that Sony is doing most things right compared to the competition, offering the best cameras in terms of "affordable and capable" because their mirrorless cameras now have most of the required options for different applications and photographers. I wouldn't want to buy any other mirrorless camera currently, that is because the others lack options. My only criticism that Sony could do better, although I'm sure this is true of the others to some degree, is that the ease of shooting and ease of use for a variety of situations is not yet greatly implemented. The mirrorless in general still lack soft skills, for which there is a greater need in view of the numerous functionalities.
It's not enough if they can automate tracking. If focus is mainly something you don't have to worry about, there are other things to worry about: Fallback alternatives, options related to the display and EVF including reasonable options around image review, the layout of the body and control for even the most overloaded mappings.
