SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

It means I don’t see this as a contest. I do what works for me. You do what works for you. Unlike you I feel no need to do in depth tests to split hairs over things that aren’t visibly different without going to extremes.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The difference is that I can demonstrate what works for me.

You can't, so it doesn't really work for you.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

No, I just don’t feel the need to prove it to you.
And on a closer look at your “proof” I don’t see the detail you speak of. There’s a fair amount of noise and I can’t tell where your focus point is because nothing is that sharp.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

We worship sharpness too much these days. Where does ‘art’ fit in.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You mean 'failure', who worships that in October 2023 in digital photography?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You wouldn't know where to begin.

Anyone can download the image and view it at 100% and see for themselves that your assessment is totally bogus.

Have you never used a manual focus lens? This was a "75mm 1.8 Voigtlander Heliar Classic manual focus lens." There is no way for the camera to record a focus point.

For the record, I focused manually on the bricks and roof tiles of the building to the right of the fountain, about 100 meters away. The fountain is about 50 meters away and well within the DOF. The bricks, tiles, fences and water drops from the fountain are tack sharp. The trees and grass on the far side of the pond are also sharp. The nearby grass is outside of the DOF which extends ffrom about 20 meters all the way to infinity.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Here is the same scene in broad daylight from the Z7 with a 50mm 1.8S lens. I converted it to B&W to make it easier to compare.

This one is front-lit where the panorama was back-lit. It's almost as sharp as the panorama.

The shutter speed was much slower at ISO 100 (1/500s vs. 1/3200s) so the water drops are blurred a little.

The resolution of the lens is not as good along the left and right edges as the Voigtlander (in portrait mode).

But in a 17x22 print you would not see any difference. It's not worth the extra effort to do the panorama in this case.

(Download)

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

If you are serious, you are using a tripod, because you are using low ISO, medium f-stop and you are shooting in the golden hours. So it won't help.
If you are not serious, nothing will help.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

I was curious enough to learn what is involved and what the tradeoffs are.

I already knew that I don't routinely need the 45.6MP Z7 because my best printer can produce a 22x17 inch print from a 33MP image at 300ppi.

But 300ppi is what you might use if someone is going to look at at a 10MP 8x10 print from about 25cm (10") without a magnifying glass. You can get away with 10MP for a larger print because the viewer needs to stand further from the print. And 10MP will still be enough even for a billboard.

But I might need more than the 33MP I can print myself if I am going to upload my image to Fine Art America since they can print one of my stitched panoramas at 108x35.5 inches. That's going to take more MP (and a well heeled buyer).

While I was at it, I did another in daylight test with an A7 III (attached). There are two flaws that show that I should have used a tripod or at least been more careful.

I actually got away with 5 handheld images for an A7 II panorama was sold.

47.9 MP - three hendheld shots at 1/2000s f/8 ISO 400

(Download)

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

No, I MEAN WE WOzRSHIP SHARPNESS!!
There are other aspects of photography.