Alpha 7R IV

OM isn't 'the poorest system' for landscapes. That's a narrow mindset of the uninformed (usually FF shooters who've never used M43 and go by specs). It's extremely difficult to tell the difference between 11 or 12 stops in a print (for example). The difference is more in the operator than the gear.

Depends what the problem is that you’re seeing, they look pretty good to me from here but that’s with reddit compression. If you’re pixel peeping then yeah, most scans aren’t going to be sharp enough; I’ve had the same roll scanned with 4 different scanners/cameras and the sharpest result I had was

Inevitability the conversation will come around to (be dominated by) the eternally boring M43 vs FF sensor. This is the wrong path to go down for you, IMO. There are as many advantages to M43 as there are for FF and ditto disadvantages. Firstly I'm going to quote your specific genres that you shoot

I had the 1DX (mark1) and honestly, shopting sports with that brick felt effortless. Most shots were good and usability wise it's the best camera i've had. I moved to Sony a7iii and a7riv which are nice but for sports they're both kinda meh. Sure they produce good images but aren't as effortless to

It depends on what you are going to be shooting. It is disappointing how many people show up to this discussion, though, and pretend that cropping doesn't exist or isn't useful. I shoot a Sony a7r4, which is 61 MP. Having all those MP has been a huge benefit to me on many occasions. - sometimes, my

Yep, I can vouch having used a Sony a7r4 for a while, it was not even close.

I started shooting back in 1999, long before mirrorless was a thing. My roots were in Canon SLRs and later high-end DSLRs, and I shot pretty much everything over the years. Sports, landscapes, portraits, studio work. I was using serious bodies at the time like the Canon EOS 3 and later EOS-1D, 5D se

Because, from what I gather, the Sony is supposed to be more resolving. When comparing the original and II versions of the Nikkor 24-70 2.8 (according to reviews), the II version is overall sharper than the original, while the original is supposedly not far behind the II - and in the center the orig

Just my iPhone for ones like this but I also have a few Sony cameras. The better pics I post are shot on an a7RIV.

They look fine to me with the resolution you provide. Tamron 70-300 is at best considered good in sharpness for a Sony A7R4.