Well I am definitely thinking more along of the lines of Baxter's and Daum's approach. I am not looking for a better camera, simply a camera that is better in certain situations where my EM1 is less good. So for instance I dont need fast focusing - if I want fast focusing I will go with the EM1 any day. More megapixels doesnt help in a lot of circumstances but maybe in landscape with a tripod it will.
Cost is of course a consideration but I was planning to buy the 40-150 2.8 (I have the 35-100 2.8) and the 7-14 2.8 anyways. So throw in an extra 1k and dont buy those and I am pretty much there.
Hold on a sec Robbie. The 16-35 Vario Tessar F/4 FE mount was announced but not yet available I think. Just checked BHPhoto and they don't have it yet. With the 16-35, it would only replicate what you have -- the Panasonic 7-14 f/4. So in my thinking, you are going for Sony for a few reasons.
1, More megapixels which is good for landscape because with more you can blow up more. But then eventually a 24MP m43 will materialize. It will have to. Olympus needs to be in the race to guarantee survival of the fittest. Which is why I advise you to wait until Photokina. A 24MP m43 body will allow you to use your existing 7-14 f/4 and do landscape great. Plus their implementation of 0 sec anti-shock is MORE effective than A7's own electronic shutter setup. There's still shock on the A7. More on the A7r due to mirror slap. So therefore with the A7, you need an extremely beefy tripod and ball head to mute this vibration to ensure every pixel you record is free from shutter shock if ultimate quality is what you seek. You can not be as sloppy as a lower megapixel camera.
This is a common fallacy I hear. More megapixels does not make for a sharper photo. It can record more detail, but also your lens imperfections, mount imperfections and shooting flaws like having a less than beefy tripod. So basically, you'll end up carrying MORE weight -- most of that come from the beefy tripod. Most serious Nikon D800 shooters carry a super heavy LINHOFF and super beefy tripod ball head and mirror-lockup to extract every last ounce of sharpness. Most of the returns store get back are from people who were frustrated with these camera not producing sharp photos.
2, Dynamic range. Currently the full frame sensor has this advantage in both lower and higher ISO. Again, the new OMD with the new sensor may mitigate that.
3, Sony FE mount selection is really pathetic. Most of the zoom lenses are f/4 for a reason. They try to design smaller zoom lenses so they don't look like it's big and humongous. But a full frame lens is always and will be due to physics LARGER than any m/43. To me, it's back to more megapixels as a trade-off.
And I'm not sure the resale value of these FE lenses. You are probably better off buying the $400 Metabones Canon EF to E-mount adapter and use Canon EF full frame lenses which retains AF, aperture and IS capabilities. You can rent, lease and buy used Canon EF lenses. It's harder with the FE lenses. Canon users I see are buying A7r with the Metabones so they could use their own EF lenses. They are currently no 36MP DSLR in the Canon line up.
4, Extreme shallow depth of field that full frame provides like f/1.4. Extreme shallow depth of field is not what you want with landscapes anyhow. You want more depth of field which the m43 provides plenty of.
Plus, the Nikon D610 body alone is just a few hundred bucks shy of the Sony A7. It is a more rounded system, albeit NOT a mirrorless camera and you have more Nikon lenses to choose from.
Sooner or later, Nikon and Canon will have to enter the mirrorless arena because you and I know that their DSLR sales are tanking. In about 2 years, their sales will be so bad that they will have to put out something.
Unless you're into the Zeiss boutique lenses that Sony offers, which by themselves are great lenses, I always believe in system investment. Sony does not believe in investing on a lens system. They never did. Even in FIFA, they never do care about their Sony still and video customers. Repairs -- they sent them to either Nikon or Canon. Just expect this when you invest in Sony bodies -- as a temporary fix for full frame until the big guys like Canon and Nikon start to wake up and bring out their own better versions than the A7 and A7r. People buy Sony A7 series because there are no other poor man's alternatives to mirror less full frame. But this is a short sighted view. Long term though and as technology advances, m43 bodies will make up ground. But if you really really need the full frame option now, then the A7 and A7r provide that instant fix.
