A bit tongue in cheek, but reading some comments here it seems to be a given that, regardless of the lack of any test data, the Z system and its lenses could not possibly deliver images that are technically any better than what we have today.
To me, assuming that there is no brand like/dislike coming at play, this is akin to saying that one believes that progress has ended.
That 5 years of additional thinking time from one of the leading optics company has zero chance of delivering improvements. I find such a flat entropic view of the world depressing... everything is the same anyway...
It seems pretty obvious to me that the #1 design priority of Sony for the FE mount has been camera and lens compactness. This is why they have come up with a mount that is common for APS-C and FF bodies. They been able to design very good lenses (the best ones not compact any more btw) with these constraints and they claim they are 100mp ready.
Then comes Nikon who designs 5 years later a new system around a new mount with the clearly stated #1 priority to design the best possible lenses and a mount aligned with this objective.
I don’t understand why we should doubt the ability of Sony and Nikon to achieve their respective objectives?
The photographers who priviledge compactness should go Sony and those priviledging image quality should go Nikon.
And yes, this is obviously an over simplication, but those trying to have a fair conversation will have understood the idea.
What’s so shocking here? There is no all mighty universal system out there.
Cheers,
Bernard