For landscape shots, especially the way you do it (one shot, low ISO) definitely the Nikon/Sony is better. No question about it. I'm totally fine with that.
What I'm not fine at all is, and this is not aimed at you, when I hear generalized statements that the Nikon/Sony is better in any situation. Just because it is better at low ISO DR? Again, it has it's advantages at low ISO, hence the better DxO score. But once you reach an ISO (800-1600 depending on model), the DR advantage is gone.
I shot about 1500 shots at a wedding last night, only about 10% was below ISO 800. So to me the Nikon/Sony DR advantage at low ISO means pretty much nothing. Landscapers think the exact opposite, and I'm fine with that too.
So the bottom line is, and it has been said many times, whether one is better or worse than the other is dependent on the intended use. Generalizing is not going to work. It's almost like saying blondes are better looking than brunettes. Crepes are better than pancakes. Apples are better than oranges
Agreed. I guess all of my frustration comes from canon's inability to hang at low iso DR. I've been doing HDR landscapes now for a long time...still working out the processing bugs. If only canon had a sony sensor with their own ergonomics and focus system. *sigh
I'd really like a D810 AND a 7D2.