I know of no other camera that behaves in exactly that fashion. However, I do know
of many cameras that take good pictures without unnecessary complexity, and that are
sold based on their image quality, not gimmicks and buzzwords.

I'm glad that the E-MIX camera worked for you on that day, with that scene. However,
it proves nothing.

So you are repeating an advertising claim,. Thank you for admitting it. Well,
if you can't trust corporate advertising, what can you trust?

VW says its cars have "farfegnugen". I admit: I don't know what"farfegnugen" means--
but then, I don't use the word. (And VW admitted lying to the US EPA about it's
light diesel truck's emissions, and in a court settlement agreed to set up a $2.7 billion
mitigation trust fund. So much for corporate integrity.)

Before you use a buzzword like "AI", you might want to find out the defintion--
if there is one. If there isn't, or if it's extremely vague or not really relevant to
photography, then you might to avoid using the term.

As it happens, there is no rigorous definition for "intelligence". So "artificial
intelligence" is undefinable. The term used to be used informally for research
into machine learning, but now it's become an advertising buzzword and a staple
of TV sci-fi (you know, like "warp drive").

Does the E-MIX also have a warp drive?

Warp drives and AI belong to fiction, but automation is real -- and it's limitations are
well-known. So the the relevant questions are: does one undrestand it's limitations?
And what's plan B when it fails to work?

We've all seen AF and AE fail. For example, if Program Mode fails to get the exposure
you want, you could try AP or SP. If that still doesn't work, you can add exposure
compensation. If you're still not getting what you want, there's manual mode.

Many photographers understand exopsure well enough to guess why a particular mode
failed to give the expected result. . But very few photographers understand AF, and nobody
understands "AI"--because it's just a buzzword.

Moreover, nobody understands any secret, proprietary algorithms except the guy who
wrote the code. And very often programammers try to implement a well-known
algorithm (some from Donald Knuth's books, say) and don't get it quite right. Complex
code is a real pain-in-the-assets.

Bottom line: photography isn't about automation--it's about control. Cameras are a tool.
And lke any tool, the user needs to understand how it works (including it's limitaitons)
and needs to control it.

It's true that when you know the viewing distance, you can compute the
resolution you need for that print.

But usually we cannot control the distance from which people view prints.
The exceptions are rare: billboards, prints hung very high on a wall or behind a
velvet rope, etc.

If you watch people in a gallery (particularly potential buyers), they will walk up to
about 3-feet from any landscape print, no matter how large. They want to inspect
the quality. So it had better not look unsharp or pixellated.

Not all types of prints require the sharpness of West Coast school landscapes.
But whatever image quality you need, you need. Playing word games won't
change the facts or how the market judges prints.

I was discussing MFT format. You wrote: "viewing from a proper viewing distance,
a print from RAW will produce a 30" X 40" print that, again from a proper viewing
distance, will look the same as any larger format 30" X 40" print".

Isn't this a bit like saying 1 loaf of bread "divided into the proper portion" (one crumb
each), will feed 100 people?

"Viewing from the proper distance" a postage stamp looks the size of the side of barn.

"Viewing from the proper distance" the side of a barn looks the size of a postage stamp.

Image quality does matter to print collectors and to good photographers. Sorry
if this spoils your affection for subminiature formats, wdross.

Why do you think Ansel Adams, Bruce Barnbaum, Don McCullin, David Muench, and
Jack Dykinga, Martin Quinn, and Beth Moon all use large format for landscape prints?
Are they just stupid, backward or bad photographers in your opinion?