Ernie, my friend, with the greatest respect I think you are doing me an injustice here. It seems to me you are either not reading my posts or cherry picking objections to fit your own reality.
"My responses are based on an analysis of the expressed needs of the OP,..."
I will have to differ there Trevor. You are expressing what you like best just like everyone else of us does.
WRONG
I have bent over backwards to try to be as objective as possible and make sure any opinion I express us as valid and unbiased as possible, and counched for their needs. I don't want the OP to make a purchasing decision based on an expressed preference on what I have or use! I am giving advice in the context of an opinion from looking at sources of information to which I can refer so that it can be considered on its own merits. I want them to take information that I provide that I try to be as relevant and as validated as possible and consider the pro's and cons after reviewing the supporting material and make up their own mind.
To that end, I expressed what I understood to be the requirements of the OP so that we were all clear about the context within which I was making comments thus: "the question, as I understand it, is what should one invest in if seeking to make a long-term purchase for landscape that will provide high-quality prints, work with existing optics but be able to take advantage of future developments in optics" (since this is a long-term thing). The latter comment was based on the cost of new gear and the fact that the last camera is quite long in the tooth - implying the gear purchase is a long-term one.
So many people get caught up in a single spec and can't really see beyond it. Yours seem to be IQ.
WRONG
This is not just not seeing beyond IQ. I examined sensor size, dynamic range - if I had stopped there the EOS 5DIV or the 5DsR would still be good contenders, however I then looked at the long-term viability of the system as an investment in the context of being able to use new lenses in the future to maintain the viability of the purchase. This was the clincher for going to the RF mount. So, this is not just not seeing beyond IQ. I was evaluating such things as the value of investment to achieve future compatibility.
The fact you can site sources that support your opinion does not prove it to be the best go for everybody.
I NEVER SAID IT APPLIED TO EVERYBODY!
I am NOT, repeat NOT making blanket suggestions for 'everybody' I am responding specifically to the set of parameters I understood and expressed as my context for this thread. I clearly said this. However, the material I have presented is relevant to this discussion.
Perhaps it is for the OP. However, perhaps it isn't. While IQ is important it not the end all of photography. It may be a fact that the new mirrorless and R series lenses are sharper but it doesn't mean the EF stuff isn't viable. They are and will be, and their cameras, for quite some time yet.
I never said that the EF stuff was not viable, in fact I said that they are great cameras, but the question really is are they the best camera for this situation given that it is likley to be a long-term investment. I am not attacking a class of camera, I am trying to find the best tool for this specific job.
I'll give you an example in my own case. I owned the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens. I sold it in favor of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Lens. Now by all rights and your thoughts I should have never done that. The Sigma is way sharper than the Canon. But is it a better lens. IMO, no it is not. The Canon is by far a better lens for me.
You are making massive assumptions in this statement based on a biased and invalid interpretation of my motives and professionalism as a photographer and coach for sales staff. Your example is irrelevent because you are arguing against an opinion I have never had the chance to make or are likely to make. What you buy or not is your own affair.
How a person intends on using his/her work is so very important, too. If you are putting photos on FB your iphone is good enough. If you need poster size prints, not so much.
You are picking an argument where none exists.
I have said so in my posts and in the link I provided a document I wrote in post #18. Here let me quote what I wrote in that document:
"The end product is what is important. There is a massive difference in necessary camera investment between creating large, high-definition prints and posting on social media. Camera companies tout Mega Pixel value, but for most purpose too many MP demands better computers, more storage space etc.
Producing images to be seen on screen is becoming more and more common in the general photographic community. Social media often degrades images for which the subtleties of technology are far less critical. Even for those producing digital output for larger screens, megapixel count is far less relevant as they will do just fine with much smaller file sizes, while of course that is not what the camera makers would have us believe."
When I refer to the difference it should be obvious that on one hand a high resolution system (camera and lens) is best for large, hi-resolution prints and Art. On the other hand creating images for social meda demands much lower end gear.
The way Rodger and I use our gear makes the 1 series gear the better choice today. Maybe not tomorrow but it is true today.
IRRELEVANT
This thread is not about how you and Roger use your gear any more than it is how I use mine. The fundemental flaw of any advice is to base it for someone else how we use our equipment. I have never specifically referred to how I use the gear in this thread. I have simply said that I have the gear I have to show that I am not unfamiliar with it, and I have also said I stil use DSLRs as well as the MILCs to indicate that I am biased in neither direction.
All your new gear and all your proof are fine for Trevor but it may not and is not for all of us. The OP included. The OP is getting more than a single minded opinion this way.
Again, this is not about 'all of us', it's about this specific situation, as it should always be...
The OP SHOULD be getting more than one opinion, but it must be better than a bald statement that what one or two people use is the best way.
I have gone to considerable effort to find references that are as unbiased as possible to give a balanced evaluation of the performance of the equipment and where possible provide comparison. I have failed to see any such effort elsewhere.
You are defending your own equipment choices by attacking my posts. I am not in any way commenting on what you have or choose to use - that is your affair. The performance and viablilty of equipment for a specific set of parameters is another matter.
I have said on several occasions that I have a technical interest in the development of camera equipment and that I hold that interest separately from considering the skill required to take photos. I still have a huge respect for the Canon DSLR system - I still shoot with 20 y.o. cameras (I was doing so today when you wrote this).
This is not about the gear on its own, its about the best investment a person making an update to their gear can provide based on purpose, current investment, future-proofing and the range of elements that one wants for a specific genre of photography. I clearly stated the elements I was addressing: Sensor size and capacity, dynamic range and compatibility with future lens developments.
cheers, TREVOR
The mark of good photographer is less what they hold in their hand, it's more what they hold in their head;
"All the variety, all the charm, all the beauty of life is made up of light and shadow", Leo Tolstoy;
"Skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase" Percy W. Harris
