I already own the 20mp Canon R6, but haven't purchased the lenses I want for landscape photography yet. Since the lenses for Canon are a bit more expensive, selling that camera and getting a Sony would get me to the same exact cost for either setup ($4700).Canon R6 RF 24-105mm f4L RF 70-200mm f4LSony A7IV Sony 20-70mm f4G Tamron 70-180mm f2.8Which setup would you rather have?

LennyLevino wrote:I already own the 20mp Canon R6, but haven't purchased the lenses I want for landscape photography yet. Since the lenses for Canon are a bit more expensive, selling that camera and getting a Sony would get me to the same exact cost for either setup ($4700).Canon R6 RF 24-105mm f4L RF 70-200mm f4LSony A7IV Sony 20-70mm f4G Tamron 70-180mm f2.8Which setup would you rather have?Either one will be perfectly fine for landscapes. I would look at my future road map, what other lenses may I want, which camera maker innovates the most. And for that it comes down to Sony, for me - the lens selection is simply amazing.That Tamron 70-180 is superb and gives you f2.8 instead f4L. And being able to go down to 20mm in a single "normal" zoom may be a game changer too, if f4 is OK for you in that focal range. So yeah - Sony hands down for me. But you ma get a different opinion if you post this in the Canon forum

It depends on how large you may want to print, but for landscapes many people want to get the highest possible megapixel count. Or viewing on a large screen, you might well want to enjoy more detail than you can get from 20mp.The A7IV is of course already well ahead of the R6 in that category.   If you opt for Sony, you could also get a 42mp A7RIII in the same price range.

LennyLevino wrote:I already own the 20mp Canon R6, but haven't purchased the lenses I want for landscape photography yet. Since the lenses for Canon are a bit more expensive, selling that camera and getting a Sony would get me to the same exact cost for either setup ($4700).Canon R6 RF 24-105mm f4L RF 70-200mm f4LSony A7IV Sony 20-70mm f4G Tamron 70-180mm f2.8Which setup would you rather have?I can speak to my thought process. Generally all DSLR cameras can do the same things. So comparing apples to apples. I am not in the market for a camera so I dont know if this is a fair comparison. Under the assumption it is:In this quandary I would get my hands on both cameras and rent them for a weekend.Again, we are talking landscape, most likely no need for a flash system.I would say a better comparison to the Canon L, as I understand that is supposed to be their top line is to go against the Sony GM line. I am also thinking why the Sony 20-70 not the 24-105 as you are doing for Canon? Perhaps a 100 mm to something zoom for Sony if you dont want the overlap.SO, I would also look at the system accessories and expansion as a whole past camera and lens if you are investing and to reduce the loss if you switch and sell used gear.*I have as this time I dont feel Nikon or Canon offers something Sony does not for me to lose a lot of money on selling.I was shooting the Sony A7III when I sold my Nikon D850 and had a D750. The higher MP is nice ,but was not really a deal breaker as this time. I just go with my needs as they happen so who knows.I did consider selling my A9ii for a A7R V, but decided for myself that made no sense.*It is such a personal decision all of this. Try an big picture your needs and if you can think future even better.Renting is I think the best move here to be 100% or it is a buy and return kinda thing. I know I would know in a matter of a weekend if my uncertainty was correct or I needed to Plan B it.

LennyLevino wrote:I already own the 20mp Canon R6, but haven't purchased the lenses I want for landscape photography yet. Since the lenses for Canon are a bit more expensive, selling that camera and getting a Sony would get me to the same exact cost for either setup ($4700).Canon R6 RF 24-105mm f4L RF 70-200mm f4LSony A7IV Sony 20-70mm f4G Tamron 70-180mm f2.8Which setup would you rather have?I doubt either one makes bad images. Assuming landscape means edge to edge sharpness and slow shooting mostly from a tripod - then I suggest the 33mp sensor will offer more detail and that may be the swing vote in this contest. 20mm is also added capability over the canon shown.Maybe you can list what it is you like about each to get more specific input.

LennyLevino wrote:I already own the 20mp Canon R6, but haven't purchased the lenses I want for landscape photography yet. Since the lenses for Canon are a bit more expensive, selling that camera and getting a Sony would get me to the same exact cost for either setup ($4700).Canon R6Why not newer R6 II that is much better? Or get R5 that has deals from time to time which is still excellent despite almost 3 years old.RF 24-105mm f4L RF 70-200mm f4LI'd choose RF 14-35L/4.0 IS. For landscape 24mm is not wide enough.You can live in the gap between 35 and 70mm or add RF 50mm/1.8 STMSony A7IV Sony 20-70mm f4GI have A7 IV and going to have 20-70 G. A7 IV has more pixels than R6/II so depend on how large print or high-res monitor?Tamron 70-180mm f2.8It's one-stop faster than f4 but lacking of 'IS' (or 'VC'), not as sharp as Canon lens at 180mm side. I will get FE 70-200/2.8 GM OSS soon that is much better than Canon RF counterpart except is fixed length due to internal zooming, so more difficult in carrying.Which setup would you rather have?I moved to Sony years ago when A7r released, otherwise if I stayed then I'd continue stay with Canon after 10-year Canon FF ownership. The RF system is also very promising.Both systems are good. Sony has lots more lenses and even body choices but Canon capturing up quickly and better in some areas. R6 II has higher score than A7 IV in DPR reviews despite less amount of pixels.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R6,Canon%20EOS%20R6%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-7M4Dynamic range is better on the R6ii than the R6 but still lags the a7iv in general. That’s often a factor with landscape photography.

UncleVanya wrote:https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R6,Canon%20EOS%20R6%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-7M4Dynamic range is better on the R6ii than the R6 but still lags the a7iv in general. That’s often a factor with landscape photography.LOL, that is actually negligible that is invisible in real-world photos. However R6 II actually looks a bit cleaner (although not sure on details) than A7 IV in DPR Exposure Latitude studio test. Also R6/II has cleaner high ISOs than A7 IV, maybe latter has more pixels.https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=sony_a7iv&attr144_1=canon_eosr6ii&attr144_2=sony_a7iii&attr144_3=canon_eosr6&attr146_0=100_6&attr146_1=100_6&attr146_2=100_6&attr146_3=100_6&attr177_1=off&attr177_2=off&attr177_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=205&x=-0.10370183725585408&y=-1.0199096890667696BTW, I own A7 IV

PWPhotography wrote:UncleVanya wrote:https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R6,Canon%20EOS%20R6%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-7M4Dynamic range is better on the R6ii than the R6 but still lags the a7iv in general. That’s often a factor with landscape photography.LOL, that is actually negligible that is invisible in real-world photos. However R6 II actually looks a bit cleaner (although not sure on details) than A7 IV in DPR Exposure Latitude studio test. Also R6/II has cleaner high ISOs than A7 IV, maybe latter has more pixels.BTW, I own A7 IVDoes that still hold true if you downsample the 33mp to 20 or 24mp? I suspect that advantage would disappear in that case. But more importantly I suspect that detecting a difference in the output of the two systems will only happen in direct head to head comparisons- no one will notice otherwise.

UncleVanya wrote:PWPhotography wrote:UncleVanya wrote:https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R6,Canon%20EOS%20R6%20Mark%20II,Sony%20ILCE-7M4Dynamic range is better on the R6ii than the R6 but still lags the a7iv in general. That’s often a factor with landscape photography.LOL, that is actually negligible that is invisible in real-world photos. However R6 II actually looks a bit cleaner (although not sure on details) than A7 IV in DPR Exposure Latitude studio test. Also R6/II has cleaner high ISOs than A7 IV, maybe latter has more pixels.BTW, I own A7 IVDoes that still hold true if you downsample the 33mp to 20 or 24mp? I suspect that advantage would disappear in that case. But more importantly I suspect that detecting a difference in the output of the two systems will only happen in direct head to head comparisons- no one will notice otherwise.Actually both quotes are normalized. But there is no visible difference in real-world photos. For landscape A7 IV has an edge in more pixels and lens choices. But on reviews I have seen R6 II is slightly better in AF-C tracking in wildlife and sports and capable to take much higher burst rate, also better in video.  It's a puzzle for Canon has a big gap in R6 and R5 lines in amount of pixels (rumored R5 II has more pixels), and Sony cap non-A1/A9 lines to max 10fps m-shutter and even lower e-shutter burst.

LennyLevino wrote:I already own the 20mp Canon R6, but haven't purchased the lenses I want for landscape photography yet. Since the lenses for Canon are a bit more expensive, selling that camera and getting a Sony would get me to the same exact cost for either setup ($4700).Canon R6 RF 24-105mm f4L RF 70-200mm f4LSony A7IV Sony 20-70mm f4G Tamron 70-180mm f2.8Which setup would you rather have?For landscape work, resolution and DR does matter.  Either of the previous a7R sensors would outperform all other options.This kit would come in at even less $.Sony a7R IV or a7R III Tamron 17-28 Tamron 70-180

SamKnopf wrote:It depends on how large you may want to print, but for landscapes many people want to get the highest possible megapixel count. Or viewing on a large screen, you might well want to enjoy more detail than you can get from 20mp.The A7IV is of course already well ahead of the R6 in that category. If you opt for Sony, you could also get a 42mp A7RIII in the same price range.I'm in the same line of thinking. If landscape is your priority, I would go with resolution.Other things, Sony 20-70 feels like very interesting lens, specially for landscape, cityscape. On tele side Tamron 70-180 is small, which is nice in this use case, but unfortunately I would have to go with optical stabilization here. And Canon has some good options, for instance 70-200 f4.

SmokeAndMirrorless wrote:LennyLevino wrote:I already own the 20mp Canon R6, but haven't purchased the lenses I want for landscape photography yet. Since the lenses for Canon are a bit more expensive, selling that camera and getting a Sony would get me to the same exact cost for either setup ($4700).Canon R6 RF 24-105mm f4L RF 70-200mm f4LSony A7IV Sony 20-70mm f4G Tamron 70-180mm f2.8Which setup would you rather have?For landscape work, resolution and DR does matter. Either of the previous a7R sensors would outperform all other options.This kit would come in at even less $.Sony a7R IV or a7R III Tamron 17-28 Tamron 70-180Agreed. If OP is mainly for landscape, then why not get a used A7r IV and A7r III as it's much cheaper now? 42mp shines. Canon is just having a big gap in this area beween R6 and R5 line. Then there are many choices in the lens. I'd suggest 16-35 PZ however for UWA that is wider (it actaully a bit wider than 16mm) and sharper than Tamron and very liight although one-stop slower. Sony has not updated its FE 70-200 G which is old and not very sharp at 200mm side. Tamron 70-180 is very good but no TC compability and no 'OSS'. Personally I will get 70-200 GM II in next few months before the trip in August, a must lens to me although is very expensive.

PWPhotography wrote:LennyLevino wrote:I already own the 20mp Canon R6, but haven't purchased the lenses I want for landscape photography yet. Since the lenses for Canon are a bit more expensive, selling that camera and getting a Sony would get me to the same exact cost for either setup ($4700).Canon R6Why not newer R6 II that is much better? Or get R5 that has deals from time to time which is still excellent despite almost 3 years old.RF 24-105mm f4L RF 70-200mm f4LI'd choose RF 14-35L/4.0 IS. For landscape 24mm is not wide enough.You can live in the gap between 35 and 70mm or add RF 50mm/1.8 STMSony A7IV Sony 20-70mm f4GI have A7 IV and going to have 20-70 G. A7 IV has more pixels than R6/II so depend on how large print or high-res monitor?Tamron 70-180mm f2.8It's one-stop faster than f4 but lacking of 'IS' (or 'VC'), not as sharp as Canon lens at 180mm side. I will get FE 70-200/2.8 GM OSS soon that is much better than Canon RF counterpart except is fixed length due to internal zooming, so more difficult in carrying.Which setup would you rather have?I moved to Sony years ago when A7r released, otherwise if I stayed then I'd continue stay with Canon after 10-year Canon FF ownership. The RF system is also very promising.Both systems are good. Sony has lots more lenses and even body choices but Canon capturing up quickly and better in some areas. R6 II has higher score than A7 IV in DPR reviews despite less amount of pixels.Since Sony allows 3rd parties as well as their own, Canon actually continues to fall further behind for lens choices.

At the risk of  being redundant, I'll echo a number of the other responses.  First, as a practical matter, I don't think you'll notice much difference between these two cameras in terms of your final images.  The Sony has a bit more resolution, so if you're cropping quite heavily or youreallylook closely for fine detail in your images, then I suppose that might matter.  Of course, if you think the resolutionwillmake a difference for you, then you might also consider a used A7Riii or A7Riv.Second, for me at least, lenses are much more important than camera bodies, and that's how I ended up with Sony.  The large selection of native lenses -- including some really excellent third-party glass -- makes it a very attractive system.  To be clear, Canon has some fantastic lenses, but it just has nowhere near the selection that is available for E mount, and all those options can make a big difference.

PWPhotography wrote:LennyLevino wrote:I already own the 20mp Canon R6, but haven't purchased the lenses I want for landscape photography yet. Since the lenses for Canon are a bit more expensive, selling that camera and getting a Sony would get me to the same exact cost for either setup ($4700).Canon R6Why not newer R6 II that is much better? Or get R5 that has deals from time to time which is still excellent despite almost 3 years old.They already own the R6 and are thinking of selling it because adding theseRF 24-105mm f4L RF 70-200mm f4LI'd choose RF 14-35L/4.0 IS. For landscape 24mm is not wide enough.You can live in the gap between 35 and 70mm or add RF 50mm/1.8 STMSony A7IV Sony 20-70mm f4GI have A7 IV and going to have 20-70 G. A7 IV has more pixels than R6/II so depend on how large print or high-res monitor?Tamron 70-180mm f2.8Is the same cost of switching to the above.

I would say get a used A7R IV. Now that A7R V is out, A7R IV value dropped yet again, to a ridiculous price for what you get for this money, especially for landscapes