@tonyturley My situation is different: I'm into shooting M mount rangefinders big time - and it'd be a shame not to be able to use the lenses I love for digital. Had I not taken the plunge, I would have ended up buying a Leica M - probably either M9-P, M(262), M-D or even M10. It was kind of a pre-emptive measure.
And I think it'll pay out - because shooting those manual lenses is fun already, even though I have to figure out the best way to set up things. The camera, while beefy, is about the same weight as the analog Leica bodies I use, which is a nice touch. Handling's very nice - much better than I was led to believe by reading online reports, and it's easy to customise; speed's not a problem either. Lots of sensible choices (button placement). It *feels* chunky and sturdy - well-built in a very satisfying way. Focus aids are effective and highly configurable; files are detailed and rewarding. Corner "smearing" (an effect caused by field curvature induced by the Sony's rather thick on-sensor filter stack, most visible with wide lenses) is moderate and usually non-intrusive; it's something that only happens at wide apertures anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem for landscapes and cityscapes.
So, regarding the merits of the camera, there are many. The only thing that bugs me considerably is the level of chrominance noise that the sensor produces (already) at ISO 3200. It's said to be a close relative of the unit used in the D750, but the Nikon delivers on a totally different level (it produces workable files at ISO 6400 - with manageable colour and *croppable* resolution!). I have to dig deeper, though; the impression may have been exacerbated by my choice of software, so I have to try Sony's own RAW converter as well as the version of Capture One Express that "came with" the camera (i.e. I can download it) and ACR before passing judgement. The files aren't completely unusable, but I'm not sure they are better than the (reasonably impressive) ones I get from the APS-C sensor in the D5500. But again, it's too early to complain - I've just started exploring; the A7 II may simply demand a bit more care than the D750. And besides, it actually *is* better than any of the Leica M bodies in that respect, though probably bar the M10 (which costs almost seven times more!). So it's all relative - I just expected a bit more in that specific regard. I'll let you know how it turns out ... --> SEE BELOW!!!
IMPORTANT EDIT: Found the culprit! Software indeed ... Presets can be a pain in the ***, really. ACR conversions showed a lot less noise; I then went back and opened the most objectionable file in darktable again - and simply reverted to "Original". darktable has presets that can be really sub-optimal starting points for more challenging files. I'm mostly satisfied now, up to ISO 3200. Phew ... this is a relief, even though it wouldn't have been a showstopper for the intended use case ...
EDIT NO. 2: Capture One Express shows the best results for direct conversion, but it also uses profiles (i.e. "presets") - nothing against those, though, they're very well done. I'll stick with darktable for general pp, but for really nasty candidates, Capture One Express will see some use. Interesting ...
FINAL EDIT: To my personal dismay, but probably to nobody's surprise, what I'd call pre-processing is less sophisticated under GNU/Linux - this may be caused by the Sony RAW drivers I installed in Windows, but I'm not sure (though I have a way of testing this - but that's only of interest to me). So, I'll probably convert Sony (as well as Canon) RAWs with Adobe DNG Converter (using ACR) - this way, I get solid base files I can edit with whatever software I want. It's an additional step, but can be done while archiving.
M.