After consideration technically Ray is correct on this one. Again the relevance still escapes me, and that doesn't excuse the fact that he made an incorrect statement trying to claim a depth of field advantage of stitching 5d Mark2 files over using a p65+ back, and then tried to pass that off as some kind of test, instead of simply admitting he didn't think it through (which we have all done) when he was called on it, because the depth of field advantage of the 5d mark 2 is insignificant.
Okay! I see Im gonna have to save face .
You do seem to be rather sensitive about this issue, Wayne. I did make the following general statement about DoF, in post #102 repeated below, without specifically mentioning the 5D2 or stitching. However, because the previous discussion had referred to full frame DSLRs such as the D3X and 5D2 being used for stitching, it would be reasonable for anyone reading that statement to assume that my general statement included the 5D2. In that sense the statement was at least partly incorrect and certainly misleading. "There also seem to be some serious disadvantages to the MFDB system, such as a slow continuous frame rate, (less than one frame per sec with the P65+), reduced performance at higher ISOs (or reduced pixel count as an alternative) and shallower DOF at any given F stop (for same FOV), which is not always ideal for landscapes. (Not to mention poor autofocussing).
For example, in the above panorama of the Himalayas, how would you get both the ladies and the mountains sharp, using a P65+? F22 at ISO 44 in the early hours of the morning?"
So apologies to anyone who rushed out immediately and bought an inappropriate camera for the job, as a result of my misleading statement.
The truth of the matter is, I realised immediately after I'd posted that general statement that it was misleading and that perhaps I should go back and modify the statement. I didn't because I was a bit slack, and also I really did genuinely wonder (God's honest truth!) if anyone would pick that up. You did, but for the wrong reasons.
The last sentence in my statement in post #102, "For example, in the above panorama of the Himalayas, how would you get both the ladies and the mountains sharp, using a P65+? F22 at ISO 44 in the early hours of the morning?"
could also be misleading, again implying that the 5D2 at F22 would produce greater DoF. But notice I didn't specifically mention DoF here. I used the word 'sharp'.
Having direct personal experience of those conditions up the mountain, I can confirm that at F22 and ISO 44 the heaving bodies of those ladies in the foreground and the swaying grass in the early morning breeze would not have been sharp due to the very slow shutter speed of the P65+ at base ISO. Here again is where the 5D2 would have an image quality advantage. If the depth of field desired required the use of F22 but the shutter speed desired in order to freeze the foreground required the use of ISO 400 or even 800, then the 5D2 stitch would likely produce the better quality image, in terms of DR, tonal range etc.
Now, you may think this is all irrelevant and merely a trivial pursuit, Wayne, but I consider it all necessary information in order to select the best tool for the job.