Do you mean the finished photo is the ultimate determinant? I can agree with that. And that means that IQ is simply a non issue. The result works or it doesn’t. IQ is adequate or not. Adequate is easy to achieve, and what is easy is a non issue in practice.

——————————————————

Seeking “Ultimate” is a pointless waste of every resource involved. But for some the pursuit of Ultimate is a pastime. And with a pastime, waste of resources and foolish pursuits comes with the territory. But treating a pastime like an existential need is just Bozo-ism.

Shorter flange distance as a benefit is actually one of the most bogus arguments in favor of the new designs. Shortening this distance causes wider angles to be required to reach the corners of the sensor. Wider angles mean that the ratio of the distance to the corner against the distance to the center of the frame is larger. The natural result of this is greater brightness falloff in the corners. That has to be corrected in some way. One is simply moving everything forward in the lens barrel, making the lens longer and heavier. The other is introducing some additional non-spherical lens elements to pump more light into the corners. That, in turn, is going to introduce some novel new forms of distortion requiring additional lens elements and weight to correct.

There is no free lunch here, folks. If you want a new camera, by all means buy one. The manufacturers all desperately need your money. Just quit making up stuff and blowing smoke to justify spending your money. The rest of us have figured out that we don't need to do it. Quit trying to tell us that we are wrong. We don't care what you do with your money.