Why I don't want some of the best modern cameras

Recently, some of the best (highest resolution) full frame cameras on the market for landscape photography have come out: The Panasonic G9, Nikon D850, A7rIII, as well as Pentax K1 II. The problem? I don't want most of them. Why? The problem lies in super resolution; first of all, all of the cameras, except for the Nikon, have super resolution (SR) built into them. Do we really need it? No. As impressive as it is, super resolution (otherwise known as shifting the pixels) isn't needed: not even for landscape! The winner then, in my opinion, based on this data, would be the Nikon D850, which seems to perform best in RAW format as compared to all of the other cameras, when not using pixel shift for any of the cameras, but instead checking to see which camera performs best at it's native setting. In other words, the Nikon can deliver the best image quality in a single photo. This makes it great for situations such as photographing wildlife and sports (well, besides the fact that the Sony is 3 fps quicker). Being totally honest here, there's not a single camera made yet which I totally want; there are definitely some cameras, including the ones mentioned, which I would certainly consider, but not definitively purchase. I'm still looking for the camera that has the best of all worlds. For example, the high resolution sensor from the Nikon into the image processing "intricacies" of the Sony, the size of a Panasonic or Fuji, as well as the ergonomics of either a Canon, Nikon, or Oly. I forgot to mention that the Sony, however, seems to show less moire despite not having an AA filter. But resolution can be increased using computer software and an SR algorithm, so you don't have to spend extra on in-camera SR.