Endeavour, thank you for reading the article, and I am sorry you see it that way. The purpose of the article is to offer a system to guide people in their choice of camera, according to their purposes and requirements. My system is to invite you to sketch a series of questions which are fundamental for you, and answer them - the answers will help you choose your camera. Of course, to give you an example of the process - rather than keeping it abstract - I used my own questions, stating what I need and what works for me as a professional Fine Art photographer, and my answers to these questions. Using my case as an example not only serves as a guideline for you to prepare your series of questions and answers, but in my opinion could work for most landscape photographers (give or take this or that requirement).
Let's look at the very first paragraph of your answer to the very first "need": "Sharpness and detail: We all know that for landscape photography the more detail the better. However, sharpness and detail do not depend on sensor resolution alone: what makes an image look sharp and detailed is first and foremost the quality of the lenses you use. So, while Leica SL has “only” 24 Mp, the amazing Leica SL optics make up for that, resolving more fine detail than pretty much any 35mm lens on the market – bar some Leica M optics, which I also can use on the SL if needed."
At best, this is highly biased. At worst, it is fanciful. I have not owned any SL lenses, but I have owned about a dozen M lenses, and currently own two, the 90 apo 'cron ASPH, and the current 135 Apo-Telyt.
I compared the Apo-Telyt to the 135/2 Sonnar a while back:
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/testing-the-sony-a7-part-11/The Zeiss lens came off better, in spite of the handicap i gave it by putting it on a body with an AA filter.
I find the Otus 85 superior to the 90 'cron:
https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/another-medium-tele-test-conclusion/That doesn't mean that either of those Leica lenses are bad lenses, only that they are not better than other similarly priced (or cheaper) lenses.
I have a lot of Leica R glass, too, and find that there are several lenses that are markedly better than the Leica R 100 Apo macro: the CV 65/2 Macro, the Sony 90 Macro, the CV 125/2.5, and the Coastal 60/4. The Leica lens does have a wonderful helicoid, though.
I have compared the Leica 50 'lux M to the Otus 55, and the Leica lens doesn't even come close as a landscape lens, where off-axis sharpness is important.
And then there are Fuji G lenses that are absolutely spectacular: the 23/4, the 120/4 macro, the 110/2. All of these are Otus-class.
So in order for me to believe your statement, I'd have to believe that the SL lenses are so much better than the M lenses, and, say, the GFX lenses, that they can overcome having twice as many pixels under GFX lenses, or any of the FF lenses I've mentioned on the D850 or a7RIII. Since the GFX lenses can approach MTF50's of Nyquist on the GFX, that is on the face of it impossible. The CV 65 and the Otus 85 and 55 can come close to that on the a7RIII, too.
By making such extreme statements, you damage your credibility as an objective source.
There are many more examples of such hyperbole in the article.
Jim