I think some Sony users are definitely salty (and I'm a Sony user myself), but I also think the DPR comments sections and the way they're handled (or not handled) have long been a sea of saltines so...

I assume that most posters on this forum are serious about photography and probably have a dozen or more lenses. Therefore, the idea of a photographer changing systems because a model from a competing system has slightly better features is puzzling to me. I look back at images I took on much less featured cameras 15 years ago and the quality is very competitive to today's cameras.

Rain isn't really a problem. Its most pure water which is not so harmful. Its dust and salt water that really kill a camera. And I've shot all kinds of photos from portraits to landscapes on windy beaches with lots of sea spray and sand.
Most importantly, people are willing to take better built cameras more places and use them more often. The best camera is the one you have with you.
At lens rentals they have a good post about how much damage saltwater has done to a certain brand of camera,
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/10/about-getting-your-camera-wet-teardown-of-a-salty-sony-a7sii/

@MyDog... If you had a gallery of somthing showing how great your picture are in driving rain, I might take your comment with some credence. Until then, your comments are only what they are, just your opinion, which makes no sense.

No one mentioned "driving rain".
I did post a link to how poor some Sony cameras around salt water.
As well as a link show how Nikon cameras are built better than Sonys.
So, it not my opinion, Its just fact.

Saltwater and sand can destroy a camera and lens coatings. Fanatical photographers who refuse to put a filter on their expensive lenses remind me of people who don't want to wear a mask during COVID.

For the lack of Nikon Z lens, luckily there is a Techart Pro adapter that allows to use all the Sony E mount lenses on the Z body, it even can auto focus, which I hardly use. I have already tested some of my Voigtlander and the 24GM with it and it works great, so the " lack of lens" issue is no longer a real issue FOR ME.

With that being said, for a Sony + Nikon system user, it's pretty obvious choice for me on my next FF landscape camera will be the Z7 II instead of another 7R IV, if I like the Z7 II enough I will get rid of the D850.

Nikon wind hands down for lenses. They design Z mount cameras to work virtually natively with all the great recent F lenses. And besides EF mount, F mount has the best line of lenses easily.

@Dan_168... if you can't take a great picture with either your D850, or A7R IV and think you need a better camera, you never will. Maybe it's time to take up another hobby?

Using the argument you can use Sony E mount lenses on a Z camera so therefore the Z system has plenty of lenses is silly. Who in their right mind will fork out the cash for say a Sony 24mm F1.4 or 135mm F1.8 to use with an adapter on a Z camera?

@Dave Oddie, why is silly to use a 24GM on a Nikon with adapter? I will, it's only silly to limit your choice with one brand. what's wrong with having a camera body you like + a lens you love from different manufacture? it's a tool not a religion, it's ok to mix if the combo works for you, and in my own case, shooting landscape, those combo works PERFECTLY.

But fact is that the evf is better.

Why is it a "fact" that the EVF is better? If one prefers EVF that's fine, but it's also perfectly valid to prefer an OVF.

landscapes are just a hobby for me

You must also look into the full well capacity of the sensors as well. The a7sIII has the highest full well capacity and surpasses the a7rIV and Z7II.

Also photographic DR is not the same as DR. The PDR measurements are based on ISO values that are not standardised.

When you reduce 48MP down to 12 you actually gain about 1EV in DR.
So the reality is these cameras beat the A7Siii pretty easily, They are using 4 pixels for every one on the A7Siii.
Also, Bayer filter sensors do not gather full color information for every pixel. They have to 'borrow' most color info from neighboring pixels. So it is easy to see why having only 12 MP is bad for color compared to a sensor with ~48MP.
When you reduce a 48MP image to 12MP you have RGB color info for EVERY pixel.

Downsampling doesn't increase DR. It just changes the perception of noise.

If your usage of DR values is to recover highlights and to lift shadows in lighroom, then be prepared to be disappointed by Dxomarks or photonstophos measurements.

@ robertfel: I know people using Sony cameras for extensive focus stacking, working with very high precision, and they don't talk about switching brand. Do you have any samples that show real world problems that are specific to this brand?

It isn't a big deal, after all, the title of his review is "I Love This Lens".
https://youtu.be/pOiP-P1QLZE?t=167
But it is a factor for me, as I'm doing more and more video for photo product clients. The art director leaning over my shoulder doesn't want to hear why her perfectly framed shot is excessively cropped from what she had in mind. Fortune 500 companies that pay enough to cover the cost of either camera in one day are more discerning with more demanding requirements.
For photography, it isn't a big deal, you can compensate for the breathing by shooting wide and cropping in, 24MP is enough for that, unless you're printing BIG.

If you're serious about focus-stacking, you move the camera, not the focus.

If they are serious about it, they use focus stacking rails.

@ Eugene A: What is the problem? I mean, the real world problem, not what you think or what urban legends say.

Well, wouldn't weather sealing and ergonomics be covered during a landscape camera review?

Perhaps the weather selling is just fine. Perhaps the ergonomics don’t create any problems. Perhaps there’s really nothing to report.

Eugene

People have different seize hands, so mentioning it makes no rational sense. Also what one like does not translate to everyone else.

@Malling, camera ergonomics is more about the number and complexity of actions required to control the camera.

But that is never what Canikon fanboys say… it always about the roomy grip, when that is pointed out to be flawed point of view then suddenly it’s something else.

How easy the camera is depend on how you set it up, it’s 101 in how to set up this type of cameras. I use wheels for every exposure settings including ISO. I have assigned buttons to my needs, so I can make quick changes on the fly with one movement/push etc. So if you have not then perhaps you need to take a closer look at yourself as that is user error.

"...So if you have not then perhaps you need to take a closer look at yourself as that is user error."

@Malling, you appear to be seriously confused, not sure why you are making this personal at all.

Read my initial comment. I am providing "a feedback for this episode of DPReview TV". I have no interest in how you set up your camera or the size of your hands.

As someone who frequently shoots landscapes in rather cold conditions, I agree that considering gloves and operation under rain and cold is an important issue. Just like they mentioned usability of the screen under the sun. It's not about hand size, that would be specific to each photographer.

Rather, rain drops and gloves render touchscreens unusable, so being able to control most features using dials while you look through the viewfinder is crucial. Larger buttons and dials simplify the process, and if they are lockable or harder to move they can prevent accidentally changing adjustments.

Oh well, and availability of smaller size/weight of lenses is important for longer hiking.

@ Txoni: As one spending hours and hours in minus fifteen-twenty degrees C during the winter season, I am pretty sure that the preparations and how you use the gear is way more important than if the camera is large or small, or where the buttons are placed. The best is a camera you know well. Using gloves? Of cause, there is no way to omit this

@Magnar, I live in warmer climates, but my hands suffer a lot in humid and windy mountains, even @ -10-0 C, since it feels much colder than that...

I do both landscapes and birding while hiking, and conditions change , so I am forced to adjust AF-C modes, focus areas, drive modes, iso limits ...very often. Rings and dials for aperture and shutter speed also help at least for me. All those buttons need to be easy to operate with gloves.

I cannot prepare those adjustments from home, and custom modes in my camera cannot configure all those unfortunately. (Yes, that's a complaint about the brand I use, which is neither of them ;-) )
To make matters worse, switching lenses even under light rain can be a nightmare when there's mud all over the place and one is on a steep hill.... The last thing I want at that moment is a camera that forces me remove my gloves!

Any tips on how to prepare for this without adding a second 1kg camera to my already heavy backpack would be welcome! ;-)

@ Txoni: Who have said anything about setting the exposure parameters at home? Lol, that would be something!

Setting up the camera is about making the camera ready for the range of settings you need to control when using the camera in very cold climate - helpful under more ideal conditions too.

When I set up the camera properly, I have no problems adjusting settings like shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus settings, etc. when using gloves. It is about access to settings, not freezing the parameters.

I always use manual settings, since I want as consistent exposures as possible to minimize the computer hours at post processing.

It’s the lenses, not the camera.
It’s the camera, not the lenses.
It’s the guitar, not the amp.
It’s the amp, not the guitar.
It’s the rod, not the reel.
It’s the reel, not the rod.
It’s the web, not the site.

No. In camera lens correction is for lenses that trade correctable performance (like distortion) with uncorrectable distortion (like sharpness).

Lenses are all about tradeoffs.
You already knew that.

I know. Very troll-like.

“In-camera lens correction is for poor lenses...”

This is not thought provoking. These are the words of a troll.

I'm not against healthy debate, but I don't think context-less provocation encourages that, YMMV.

MikeRan,
If you think these are words of a troll, then we do not share the same logic...
So I will try to explain. If a lens need to be corrected, it is because it is important to get rid of some lens "defects". Which implies that, in the first place, the lens should be good. Which, in turn, implies that the lens matters. In-camera lens corrections make lens performance less critical, but, from a theorical point of view, this is not ideal, IMHO. How can in-camera lens corrections be useful when you use a manual lens or a modern lens, through the use of an adapter, that is not supported by the camera ?
That's why I fully agree with the OP.

You know all those elements in modern lenses? They're there to correct things optically, and they have downsides and tradeoffs (beyond the extra cost/bulk) just like software corrections, you aren't getting a free lunch on either side of the equation...

There's things that are easier to correct optically, there's things that are easier to correct in software, too much of either probably points at a big design deficiency but the mere presence of software corrections doesn't imply poor design or a lens that is somehow lesser than XYZ.

It's kinda bizarre than in this era where people measuebate the heck out of body/sensor performance there's still a stigma around software corrections rather than simply looking at the end result, but whatever...

P.S. If you think any amount of corrections make for a poor lens then you own a bunch of poor lenses Karroly. Either that, or maybe you know better and you were just trolling. :)

But it's not like they released this review 7 months ago when the Z7II came out. Both cameras have been out for a long while...so if you waited 7 months to release the review whats waiting just a little longer for the a7R IVA which is literally available now. The only thing I can think of is this summer is extremely slow with camera release(they were doing a Mac vs PC review last week) and they were forced to get a video out.

It's interesting that three of the features Sony lacks (focus stacking, timelapse preview, and pixelshift in-camera compilation/preview) are all in the same category; in-camera RAW processing. Another one not mentioned that I wish Sony would add is in-camera RAW>JPEG conversion.

There seems to be either a limitation or difference in philosophy at Sony. If the former, I suspect it might have to do with Sony squeezing more CIPA shots per mAh out of their battery which means more efficient/less powerful processors. And if the latter, seems like Sony is just focused on delivering excellent sensors that provide excellent RAW files and the rest is up to you in post-processing.

Sigma has an outstanding 14-24mm F2.8 for the same price that is heavier, a Sony 16-35mm F4 that trades 2mm for 5mm, and a Tamron 17-28 F2.8 that is cheaper, lighter, and brighter but not quite as wide.

The Nikon is a nice balance, but the fact that it sits within a pack of 3 Sony lenses kind of demonstrates the difference in lens selection.

I love my 17-28/2.8 but even that one is somewhat larger (tho lighter) than the 14-30/4, Nikon really nailed a very appealing sweet spot with that one IMO... The Sigma is probably a little better optically than either but I'd rather have either of the former if I'm gonna be hiking a long way with it. The hardcore might end up looking at Nikon's f2.8 or Sony's various GMs tho.

I think the 20/1.8 G (again, smaller, lighter, and better corrected than the Nikon) and the overall choice of 3rd party stuff along with some of the really lightweight GMs (eg 24 & 35) probably make a stronger case for Sony's lens lineup advantage, if you lean that way (I do); tho I'd again argue that zooms and even teles are more important to the average / dedicated landscape photog.

" Ah Sony also has a 24-70mm F4 that is lighter than Nikon's model and zooms internally, though not with the same IQ. " -Brent

I'd forgotten about that one (with good reason), but it definitely doesn't zoom internally... I'm not aware of any modern 24-xx that does?

This niche is sort of focused on absolute IQ, where the Z7II has better base ISO and the Sony has better resolution. I think the Canon also bakes in noise reduction at base ISO in RAW files which further handicaps IQ.

The S1R is also noticeably absent, despite also being high-rez with pixel-shift and focus stacking.

It's kind of an artificial comparison, as the number of people who would notice minute sensor IQ differences is likely quite small.

It frankly baffles me why they choose to but it’s pretty well documented that canon is baking substantial NR at ISO’s less than 640. I think you also lose resolution because canon had chosen to include an AA filter on the R5.

50R + 32-64 F4 = $4,500 + $2,400 = $6,900
A7RIV + 16-35mm GM = $3000 + $2,000 = $5,000

That's a pretty big price difference, and it looks like Fuji can only go as wide as 25mm for zooms and 18mm for zooms, so nothing like the 12-24mm GM.00 You're also giving up resolution for the MF without spending even more.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't turn down a GFX100 if someone gave one to me! It's just in another pricing tier and highly specialized.

@BrentSchumer
In Europe they have the same price atm.

GFX50R costs 3500€ in EU new.

Samuel Lucifer; bigger sensor is better for landscapes. I rather use my MFT gear due to weight and size, but FF users keep telling me that's absurd. So it also applies here, bigger is better. MF is becoming more and more reachable and is getting into FF range. That's good for all of us.

If it were truly medium format, but fact is that the GFX is the smallest of all available MF sensors not even coming close to true Medium From which used to be 6x4cm. All Fuji's sMF is just marketing BS. But if you think its better I am fine with it.

I went through all the considerations to make and found no real overall advantage in the Fujifilm Medium Format system. There is really nothing that it excels in. Its a good camera nonetheless so if you think you need it go ahead.,

But imho 35mm has the advantage in many ways.
From available glass choice, to portability to price. And that's why I in the end opted for 35mm instead of small medium format.

You just seem to look at shear sensor size, which in a technical sense is fine. But a system consideration should really not be based on the sole sensor at all.

Yes, as Samuel pointed out: fullframe and the small, cropped, "wanna-be" medium format (44x33mm) are essentially the same sensor size for all practical intents and purposes: the horizontal crop factor is only 44/36mm = 1.2, much closer together than FF versus APS-C (=1.5).

Because FF and small MF have practically about the same sensor size: FF's lens choice, in particular for fast FF lenses, causes
- FF to be superior for low-light cleanness (can stay longer at lower ISOs)
- FF to be superior for bokeh
- FF to be superior for additional sharpness for slightly moving objects (because shutter times can be kept shorter).

So I don't understand the use case for small 33x44 "wanna-be" medium format, yielding only a negligible crop factor of only 1.2. So let's assume that this is a marketing-only thing. Pentax had already failed with their 44x33 attempt back then in the DSLR era, and I can't see a much different outlook for Fuji's GFX, for similar reasons?

@ MyDog Is Incharge: Adapted lenses? Forget about it! Not attractive at all!

No you live to far from me for buying a camera based on your lenses

@cbphoto123: Opinons differ. Not all agree with you all the time ... get used to it on discussion forums.

Characterizing people because they do not share your point of view is foolish.

Adapting lenses is probably most practical for landscapes.
Adapting among the same brand of course as well as adapting across brands (I.e. Canon EF to Sony E)

Agree, that's why as a 25 year Nikon shooter and 6 year Sony shooter, the Z7 II is so attractive, as it can take all my Nikon lenses, and it even takes those E mount Voigtlanter and Zeiss manual focus prime lenses with the Techart pro adapter. and more importantly, doing so without hurting my fingers after a full day of shooting.

If your fingers hurt after a day of shooting, you should probably explore customizing your camera with grip attachments and custom buttons.

Yeah ? The p in dpreview doesnr stand for profesional. Not everyone is experience like you here

To each his own.
And to each his own considerations to make.

In a technical sense the GFX100 is the best deal, but when it comes down to total cost of ownership and value for money and shooting options it may actually not be the best choice at all.

How silly. For landscapes you do not need 'native lenses' and people adapt wider lenses all the time.
Anyway, if you are so worried just get he Z7ii which is easily the best FF camera for landscapes.

I don't think LensRentals has teared down an R4, have they?

I was ready to migrate to GFX100s, but I shoot a lot of wide angle Milky Way stuffs, so I need lens fast, wide lenses, and Fuji system lacks the lens in that department at the moment, so I put my GFX100s purchase on the back burner for now, and keep my A7RIV with 14GM and D850 + Sigma 14 F1.8, but in general speaking I do agree with you the GFX100s is probably the overall best landscape machine at the moment.

Another issue I have with GFX100s is the Aspect Ratio, I really hate 4 : 3, coming from Olympus, I just know this is not for me, I will throw away 1/3 of the pixel almost every single time when I do my final cropping, with all those reason, I found the GFX100s is just not the idea solution for me at this moment but a Z7 II is a more practical alternative.

Well I can also use all your E-Mount AF lenses with my Z7II by using the E to Z adapter with Techart Pro TZE-01. It adapts all of you Sony E lenses including the 3rd party lenses to my Z without any problem. So problem easily solved.

@Samuel

But that's a terrible idea with low backfocus ultrawide lenses. The difference in coverglas thickness will destroy your corner resolution

Even at 24mm the difference is severe: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/06/sensor-stack-thickness-when-does-it-matter/

Glass designed for the sensor cover glass is the way to go. Especially if you have a choice (like with voigtländer who make slightly different lens versions for different cover glass thicknesses)

LOL - A 'terrible idea' through which Sony made its current status.

For your convenience reasons you seem to have forgotten that Sony grew so quickly thanks to all the adapters that have been available to lure all those Canon users to their side...

I'll understand - another one of those showpieces that Sony didn't hold.

DSLR lenses are telecentric designs for the most part. That's why cover glass thickness is much less of an issue there

Just look at the bazillion threads for M-Mount lens adaptation to the Sony system where basically everything wider than 50mm is a problem. Cover glass thickness matters for low flange distance designs

That's the whole reason cover glass conversion services exist. Like kolarivision