I agree with previous comments that the 28-45 is better at 35mm than the 35mm A lens. Colour, contrast and CA are evidently better and resolution is a touch higher, but the A series lens is still superb and a much better option if you can do without the flexibility and SR of the zoom. Personally, I prefer the zoom, because I like to tweak the focal length as needed and its wonderful to have prime lens quality while doing so.
Back onto the A7R II and 645Z comparison, I agree the Z has an edge and produces superior textural detail. That said the A7R II isn't far behind at all. The system just needs better lenses at the wide end to compete with the Z. Comparing my 28-45mm with the 35mm FE Sonnar on the A7R, the Sony cannot come close in edge performance. The Z is perfect across the frame, although one has to look out for curvature that creeps in at the long end, which can affect the centre bottom of frame softer than the corners if you focus too far into the scene for the given aperture.
At some point the Z will be replaced with 70 or 80MP update, one assumes, so then what? I think the decision is simple: if you want a Z get a Z. If you want a Sony because its not that far behind and much smaller and cheaper, get the Sony. Both are incredible. The Z has the edge for now IMHO and will leap ahead again when the same sort of pixel pitch and BSI sensor hits the Z, but this won't matter to most people, because both already provide all the quality most need. I look at my Z files and for the first time ever conclude that I could shoot this camera without ever wanting more, for colour and B&W. Its that good.
On the price front, its worth doing the maths. A 645Z with 35mm A a 75mm FA and a few used zooms is no more expensive that the A7R II and a bunch of the latest Sony/Zony/Zeiss optics... Food for thought. My personal decision has been to continue investing in the Pentax and keep my Sony kit (Mk I bodies) as a fairly simple one. I may add a 21mm Loxia or 25mm Batis at a later point, but for my more structure landscape work, the Pentax is the one that satisfies me most. The 4:3 aspect ratio is also a part of that equation. I far prefer it for landscape work. For travel, the decision would be simple: Sony all the way...
Back onto the A7R II and 645Z comparison, I agree the Z has an edge and produces superior textural detail. That said the A7R II isn't far behind at all. The system just needs better lenses at the wide end to compete with the Z. Comparing my 28-45mm with the 35mm FE Sonnar on the A7R, the Sony cannot come close in edge performance. The Z is perfect across the frame, although one has to look out for curvature that creeps in at the long end, which can affect the centre bottom of frame softer than the corners if you focus too far into the scene for the given aperture.
At some point the Z will be replaced with 70 or 80MP update, one assumes, so then what? I think the decision is simple: if you want a Z get a Z. If you want a Sony because its not that far behind and much smaller and cheaper, get the Sony. Both are incredible. The Z has the edge for now IMHO and will leap ahead again when the same sort of pixel pitch and BSI sensor hits the Z, but this won't matter to most people, because both already provide all the quality most need. I look at my Z files and for the first time ever conclude that I could shoot this camera without ever wanting more, for colour and B&W. Its that good.
On the price front, its worth doing the maths. A 645Z with 35mm A a 75mm FA and a few used zooms is no more expensive that the A7R II and a bunch of the latest Sony/Zony/Zeiss optics... Food for thought. My personal decision has been to continue investing in the Pentax and keep my Sony kit (Mk I bodies) as a fairly simple one. I may add a 21mm Loxia or 25mm Batis at a later point, but for my more structure landscape work, the Pentax is the one that satisfies me most. The 4:3 aspect ratio is also a part of that equation. I far prefer it for landscape work. For travel, the decision would be simple: Sony all the way...