Cholly, you have to remember that Minolta lenses were specced to work at relatively low frame rates due to the spring return on the aperture lever. You could shoot wide open with no problem and maybe one stop down but unless the a9 takes that in to account and can hold the aperture open whilst the electronic shutter does it's bit,, well??? TBH, frame rates don't bother me, I rarely if ever use other than single frame advance.
Me neither which is why I'm still on the fence using the a7rM2 and the a99M2 for what they each do best.

I feel your pain, I'm retired (long time retired) and on a fixed income which has suffered in recent years; still, I'm not complaining, plenty worse off than me.
Not sure I'd agree Cholly. The a99M2 is a very capable camera and it does have 42Mpix which is very useful when it comes to cropping, you could say it's a crop camera on steroids. The silent shutter would certainly be very useful and the AF speed is probably close to the a99M2, not sure but 24MPix??? I'm sure there will be a replacent a7rM* which will fit the bill.

Blue Heron, a99M2 with Minolta 28-135/4 .......

The camera is targeted at a specific market and at a pretty high price point. I don't fit the target market so I'll stick with the a7rM2 and the a99M2 for now. I'm sure there will be another camera which will fit in with my requirements.

A perfectly acceptable position even if from limited experience. I use the a7rM2, primarily for Landscape/Portrait work and honestly don't find the small size to be limiting, rather advantageous in fact.

Neither do I find the lack of "real estate" to be a problem with the controls. The usual two control wheels plus dedicated Exp.comp and a control dial, 14 buttons 12 of which are customisable with 34 options, plus the QuickNavi menu comprising 12 slots with 34 possible functions. I can't say I've ever found myself wishing for more buttons. Of course, I've long been using Sony cameras and Minolta before them so I'm used to how things work and there is no doubt that it's different so I can see why CaNikon users find it incomprehensible. I have the same problem when a junior club member asks for help with their CaNikons, I am totally at sea with the camera operation.

I'm not claiming that the camera is without fault, we're going through a development process with e-mount and each generation improves on the last which is as it should be. What I do claim is that any faults are far outweighed by the advantages and IMO, the camera (a7rM2) cannot be bettered by any opposition camera for Landscape/Portrait use. I'm talking functionality here not IQ, any modern FF camera is very capably of excellent IQ, I see it all the time in the work of hundreds of members of the WCPS (local federation). I do think we Sony users have the edge in IQ with these latest sensors but it's really not a big deal so far.

When it comes to "lack of balance" with large lenses I just don't get it. I support large lenses (well any lens) with my left hand while the right one handles camera control (I do the same with a DSLR). Supporting with the left hand and from the centre of balance seems natural to me so I've never found a handling problem with smaller cameras. I do like the bigger grip on the latest camera but not for "supportive" reasons.

Really big lenses (300/2.8) go on the a99M2; one because they are A-mount and two because the a99M2 is PDAF and more suitable for Aircraft/Sport/Wildlife although it looks like the a9 puts a different handle on things. If the a9 is as fast to focus as reports suggest and the tech arrives in the A7rM*, maybe the a99M2 will become superfluous. We shall see.

No, you didn't actually blame the Sensor, you blamed the camera for "banding". Banding is invariably a sensor issue so you're just splitting hairs. I notice you ignored my point about the banding caused by fluorescent light but that's about par for the course. I made several points on the second page in response to various claims you made but as usual, you ignore the facts and simply resort to abuse.

There you go again with the insults, the last resort of the insecure with a crumbling position. I get the feeling I've been here before and I really should know better than get involved in this no doubt pointless exercise. GBS said it best "Never wrestle with pigs, you get dirty and the pig likes it". If I repeat myself I may get through in the end, possibly.

This is NOT banding due to the sensor, why would you claim it is? I suppose you'd say the same about the banding induced by a fluorescent tube?

Nice catch Cholly, so that's Zero banding then.
It had to be something odd going on given that only some, very few at that, images were affected.
I'm not likely to get an a9 but the tech will like as not appear in the next e-mount I purchase.

It's probably not my place to muscle in on this exchange but ....
I'm not sure what you mean by "generally agreed" or what constitutes a "lot of people but I'm guessing you refer to a lack of lenses which is the one usually trotted out. With regard to the A-Mount, this really doesn't compute because there's a pretty complete range when you include the Minolta and third party lenses. You can argue that the tracking system of the A-Mount is not as good as that found in CaNikon cameras; I can't disagree with that, however I know the a99ii is not so very far behind and it has other big advantages like the WYSIWYG EVF combined with things such as Eye Tracking, Focus Magnify, range limiting which make it a far more usable camera IMO. If I were exclusively a Sports/Wildlife Professional, then I might possibly be tempted to go for Nikon but that would be an expensive change. In any case, the 42 Mpix of the a99ii coupled with the Sony 500/4 is a killer combination that would be hard to beat so, maybe not.

BTW, when it comes to lenses for E-mount, Sony is doing a pretty good job considering the system is so new. It's also worth pointing out that Sony is designing for 50 lpm and if you look at DXO lens tests, Sony have three in the top ten, CaNikon have none. The latest Sony G Masters have not yet been tested.

What issues are you talking about?? As Cholly has already pointed out there are only two mounts "A" and "E". Yes, as a convenience Sony provide adapters to enable A-mount lenses to be used on E-mount and what's wrong with that? It's pretty useful for those of us with a bunch of A-Mount lenses dating back as far as 1986 and to have them stabilised as well. It's also a fact that there are third party adapters which enable the use of practically any lens ever made on E-mount; again, what's not to like??

Same for Sony. Every A-mount lens whether crop(DT) or FF fits any A-mount camera whether crop or FF. Every E-mount lens whether crop(E) or FF(FE) fits any E-mount camera whether crop or FF.

An adapter is only necessary if I want to use an A-mount lens on the E-mount in just the same way as the Canon mirrorless camera needs an adapter to use EF lenses. You really need to get your facts right if you want to continue your career as Troll and Fanboy.

This is a load of rhetoric without fact. The Sony systems (plural) have been eminently reliable in my experience as has the customer service. There again, being in the UK, service is provided direct by Sony whereas in the US it's handled by American companies which is clearly less than optimal. You can find instances of poor customer service with any of the camera companies if you'd care to look.

Ah yes, insults. The last resort of the insecure with a crumbling position. I can't help feeling I really should know better than get involved in this no doubt pointless exercise. GBS said it best "Never wrestle with pigs, you get dirty and the pig likes it".

Overheating has been shown not to be an issue by many tests since. Current speculation is that the particular overheating report may have been caused by the SD card used, a slow one inappropriate to the camera. There are trolls spreading these rumours presumably in an attempt to discredit the camera.

The problem with using a Minolta SR mount lens on a Nikon requires an adapter with a lens element (someone already mentioned this) which causes unacceptable degradation to such a fine lens. I have many old Rokkors with which I never parted so I was very pleased when Sony introduced the mirrorless range; I started with the NEX-7 and they are now seeing full use on an a7rii. Wikd!

Love to Dave but you have to know that Eagle will take one look at me and high-tail it.

Dave, you can get the 58AM closer to the target by using an optical trigger fired by the pc-synced 20AM

You're probably correct and my "one trick pony" is probably a bit OTT but even with my limited expertise in the area of big business I can see that Canon's profitability has dropped by approximately two thirds since the high of 2007.
I'm not sure a big company can be too diversified provided that management decisions are devolved to the divisions. Invulnerable? No! Any company which rests on it's laurels and fails to move with the times is vulnerable; I already mentioned Kodak and IBM but there are many more instances. Sony is a company which thrives on innovation, sometimes to its cost but often to great advantage. Where is Canon in innovation? I know that many Canon users complain that whilst new bodies appear on a regular basis, the changes and upgrades are minor while the increase in price is often significant. Where is the competition to the "killer" sensors offered by Sony (and Nikon) and where is the response to the mirrorless revolution?

I have no real axe to grind here and on a personal level I don't really care what Canon does or doesn't do. My investment in Minolta/Sony gear means I'm wedded to Sony whatever Canon may or may not come up with but on a more general level, genuine competition has to be good for the Consumer.

Yes I'd sell it. I've been hanging on to it but apart from it being a second body it can't do anything the a99M2 doesn't do better. For air shows I used to swap my 300/2.8 between the a99 and a77M2 for the extra reach but with the additional MPix of the a99M2, I don't need to swap.

This picture of the MIG29 illustrates one difficulty; you need to choose the body in advance but I was a bit close to get it all in the frame of the 77M2. Now I have the a99M2, I have the option to crop anywhere up to a FL equivalent of 450mm retaining good detail and I would have got the tail in frame. A bit like having a 300-450 zoom.

ISO is better on the a77M2 but on its own not a big enough reason to change. The AF is something else, that is a big improvement and the reason I upgraded in the first place.

Hi planepics. If you crop the 42MB Sensor down to the 1.5 crop of the a77II then you have an 18.7MB image
If you crop to 24MPix, then that would equate to a crop factor of 1.32
As you know I have both the a77M2 and the a99M2 and I now see little point in hanging on to the a77M2.