I got out of the Sony system to buy into Leica. I haven't forgotten all the reasons why I left, and this new camera doesn't address any of them. But I was looking at the reaction in some photography forums to the specs of the new Sony here: https://www.sonyalph...ecs-comparison/ ... and it was giving me some food for thought.
The most common reaction was that this was a genuine leap forward for Sony's A7R series. That new sensor offers improved light sensitivity and better dynamic range. It has pixel shift technology (really only applicable if you photograph static objects on a tripod). The IBIS previously offered 4 stops of shutter speed, and it now offers 5. Then there are all the other improvements which would be great for other photographers, but I personally have no need for - improved AF, faster burst speeds, video, etc.
The most common complaint is that it "costs so much" (USD$3200, same price as the A7R II when it was new). For that, I have to LOL. My M10 costs nearly twice as much, and the only improvements it offers over the Sony is better build quality and handling. Other than that, it loses to the Sony in every measure, including the most important one - the Sony has a better sensor. It has built in image stabilization.
I do grant that having a camera that is nice to use is not to be sniffed at, I could not tolerate the ergonomics of the Sony which is why I quit the system and moved to Leica in the first place.
But I am starting to wonder whether an A7R III would make more sense as a backup body for my M lenses than something like an SL.