Those results are way different from Reichmann's. I'd tend to go with Luminous Landscape.It's interesting that looking at the DPReview studio test shots the actual image quality isn't much to write home about compared to my existing ageing Sony RX100 and Canon G1X.
The old Canon G1X remains a king of the compact club at all ISOs up to 3200 even with it's limited Dynamic Range of about 11 stops.
From the AP review , the DR of the new camera appears no better , high ISO noise is worse and lens resolution a less than the G1X which might be OK if I needed the focal length range. Strange how progress isn't automatic these days.
A New Perspective On Landscape PhotographyFrom researching my digital images, stretching back more than 15 years, what I’ve discovered is that the majority of my photographs, landscapes as well as general nature and also documentary street shooting, are done with medium to moderately long focal lengths – say 35mm to 200mm. This isn’t surprising. What I somewhat anticipated as well is that a high percentage of my best work is with longer lenses – in the 300mm to 600mm range. Of course, this is often what the doctor ordered when shooting wildlife, but also landscape, as with the moonrise image above.
Interesting how just as Reichmann discovers his love for the ~600 mm G3x, another landscape photographer is featured who discovered his own neglected need for a long or longer lens for landscapes. I'd guess that this is no coincidence, i.e. that this photographer's essay is intended to buttress Reichmann's. I have to wonder about the longer focal lengths for landscapes though, since the sheer distances involved usually mean much more air between camera and subject than with bird photography etc., and that air isn't always sparkly clean.The G3X range goes with Michael's photography, 2 articles from Lula:
A Preference for Long Lenses
A New Perspective On Landscape Photography