Would you share your aperture and ISO? And are you talking of maybe 3, 15 or more seconds?

I lived there and agree: go for the colors further north.

Shorty answer: mechanical shutter malfunction? Long answer: I had an issue like this on my Nikon D750 about 8 years ago. It occurred in one of about 400 photos. I shot manual with mechanical shutter. That model had issues with the mechanical shutter and many were recalled. Nikon said my serial number was not affected and would not take it back . Finally about 4 years later I got an email that my serial number was recalled. By then it had 99,000 exposures. They took it back, replaced the shutter, cleaned it up so it looked new. It never had the problem again. I gave it away to my daughter at 160,000 exposures and she has not reported it as a problem since she got it.

I have also heard rumors that Sony is or will be providing some of this equipment to Apple. The question is: will Sony keep the best for itself ? Anyway… no sense buying anything for a few months, I think.

Short answer: Don’t waste your time and $. Why? 1) The iPhone uses several lenses together. When I put on an add-on lens, it covers some of the other lenses and the phone can’t figure out which one to use. It keeps flipping back and forth. Even when I position it perfectly on one of the 3 iPhone 13’s lenses so it doesn’t cover the other ones, the iPhone does its AI computer processing and the image comes out weird. 2) even Moment says to only use its wide angle lens. It’s 2x lens should be used only to created an “artistic effect”, according to them . What that means is that the image will come out weird (from my experience). 3) I used my 2x add on lens on my iPhone 7+ and it was fine. On the iPhone 8 and anything above that, just enlarging the regular iPhone image came as good as the 2x lens . On the iPhone 13 and 14, the 2x images were worthless. 3) the iPhone 15 is likely to come with a 140-150 mm equivalent optical lens (not just a digital zoom). I read that the Android 23s from one of the Korean phones is great and zooms optically tremendously.

Lightroom's DeNoise creates the least artifacts. On1 DeNoise 2023 is also great (2022 was worthless). Topaz Photo AI can be the best because it has many "sliders" you can use to sharpen the image. BUT.....doing that can generate artifacts such as around tree leaves and branches (like any over-sharpening program). Also I note that the color is often "prettier" when it comes back from Topaz, so it has processed that too (it is no longer the colors you sent into Topaz). This color addition is applied everywhere but NOT behind the branches of the trees.....and that area comes back whiter and brighter than what was sent into Topaz. Furthermore, it occasionally puts a grid of lines over your entire image that ruins it. It is most obvious over the large areas that are either very dark but occasionally the homogeneously blue sky). ON1 DeNoise 2023 has done that also to my pics, but only a few times. Admittedly, it is probably because of moving the sliders in Topaz that these artifacts are caused, but my advice is to review your image carefully as soon as you bring it back to LightRoom or Adobe.. Or you might print it a few days later and suddenly see those subtle halos or grid. ( I have not noticed any of those in the Adobe/LightRoom Enhance/deNoise).

Lightroom's DeNoise creates the least artifacts. On1 DeNoise 2023 is also great (2022 was worthless). Topaz Photo AI can be the best because it has many "sliders" you can use to sharpen the image. BUT.....doing that can generate artifacts such as around tree leaves and branches (like any over-sharpening program). Also I note that the color is often "prettier" when it comes back from Topaz, so it has processed that too (it is no longer the colors you sent into Topaz). This color addition is applied everywhere but NOT behind the branches of the trees.....and that area comes back whiter and brighter than what was sent into Topaz. Furthermore, it occasionally puts a grid of lines over your entire image that ruins it. It is most obvious over the large areas that are either very dark but occasionally the homogeneously blue sky). ON1 DeNoise 2023 has done that also to my pics, but only a few times. Admittedly, it is probably because of moving the sliders in Topaz that these artifacts are caused, but my advice is to review your image carefully as soon as you bring it back to LightRoom or Adobe.. Or you might print it a few days later and suddenly see those subtle halos or grid. ( I have not noticed any of those in the Adobe/LightRoom Enhance/deNoise).

1) As someone mentioned, proof/tune your photo on what the “agency” is using for choosing what they buy. TV monitors are made for motion, not still photos. They generate a lot of funky colors that are not there in your photo. I assume agencies review on a computer monitor. 2) I am looking at your photo on an iPhone. Here I se a lot artifacts from over-sharpening: a) the dark band around the lamp post b) the white linear halos along the margins of the buildings and the windows, c) the lighter sky seen thru the trees. All are from over sharpening and remember that the new “noise reduction” apps, whether in LR, Topaz AI, or On1 NoNoise all sharpen the edges ( without telling you) when they “reduce” noise. And at the end, they change to exposure and colors automatically to make it look better. But they do this to areas they have selected automatically. And they repeatedly choose to not select the space between the branches between trees. That is why trees often come out funky.
But the big question has been asked by others: did bou need to sharpen at all ( beyond what Noise Reduction programs do)?
The answer, in this photo is: No. Clouds normally fade off at the edges. No need to sharpen a sky! (Admittedly, you might want to change the contrast, highlights or shadows in the sky, cut even that can occasionally cause halos or fringing…. So look at all parts of your photo at 100% magnification for these every time you make any change!)
You asked for opinions, hope this is to too much.

You have made a great presentation for a prime. I guess the other side to consider is: if you are going to buy a zoom for other reasons anyway ( because you like to do landscapes or “events”), do you have enough money left over for a prime?

I use Zerene and have liked it for 5-6 years. I tried the “trial” version of Helicon about 1-2 years ago. As I see it, Photoshop has one method to do focus stacking. Zerene has 2: “P” and “D” stacking. Helicon has 3 methods. So, I am sure there are some cases in which Helicon could process a series better. But I didn’t think it was enough to warrant buying it. And I would have to process everything 3 instead of 2 ways to determine which method is best for each scene.

Years ago I tested my just-arrived Tamron G1 ( purchased just months before the G2 came out). The Nikon was a little little bit sharper but the Tamron gave me about 1/2 f-stop more light at the same settings. Don’t ask me why. The G1 was lighter than the Nikon, and cheaper. The extra weight was the biggest factor. I have not regretted it and didn’t bother buying the G2 when it came out. That’s my 2 cents worth. I would assume the G2 is even better.

I like my Canon pro 100 but am considering changing for the 1,000. Consider the size of the ink cartridges if you print a lot at one time. If not, the 200 or 300 would be great. I often print 17- 23 photos on a weekend. I have to reprint several because of my mistakes… like a branch of a tree looks bad on the print. So, I often run out of ink with those small cartridges and have to borrow from friends or run to the local camera store… which occasionally is out of some colors. The Pro 1,000 has much larger tanks than the 100, 200, or even the 300. So I should not run out of ink. PS #1 Despite not using the Canon printer for months, it rarely clogs. So I would re buy Canon. BTW the cost per print is probably similar after you buy the printer (I expect people to disagree though). PS #2 Canon’s President said at a big meeting that the days of inexpensive cameras, printers and supplies are over.

I like my Canon pro 100 but am considering changing for the 1,000. Consider the size of the ink cartridges if you print a lot at one time. If not, the 200 or 300 would be great. I often print 17- 23 photos on a weekend. I have to reprint several because of my mistakes… like a branch of a tree looks bad on the print. So, I often run out of ink with those small cartridges and have to borrow from friends or run to the local camera store… which occasionally is out of some colors. The Pro 1,000 has much larger tanks than the 100, 200, or even the 300. So I should not run out of ink. PS #1 Despite not using the Canon printer for months, it rarely clogs. So I would re buy Canon. BTW the cost per print is probably similar after you buy the printer (I expect people to disagree though). PS #2 Canon’s President said at a big meeting that the days of inexpensive cameras, printers and supplies are over.

Can’t tell. Too many variables are unknown. 1) was the painting on the ceramic sharp? The edges are often not sharp on such painted objects. 2) What was the DOF/ aperture? The cup is much sharper than the painted box and the I’d say that is only 1/2-2 cm further away. 3) and what pp ll about motion? Was it handheld? If on a tripod, was VR|IBIS turned off? I’ve found the leaving VR on cause unsharp images if shutter speed is longer than 1/3 second in some camera/ lens combinations and almost always longer than 1/10 of a second and even more at more than 1 second. And finally 4) what others have said: FB is not a true representation of what is on your camera’s sensor.