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.

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

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

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

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

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

This was indeed shot on the ARRI Alexa 35. I shot open gate (as you said, 4.6K at 24fps), but it was shot on ProRes 4444 XQ which is a significantly less data consuming file format than ARRIRAW. Yes, the Sony A7R4 is exponentially cheaper and shoots still frames that are 4x the resolution of the ARR

cheap 75 mpx camera XDthe cheapest high res you could buy is probably a used sony a7R IV, which is a full frame 61mpx. with a good sharp lens, you can get very detailed photos with it. or maybe a used canon 5DS. But you also need sharp high quality glass to have the resolving power for high res sens