Hi Alan,
To begin with, I really appreciate the kind words.
Back to the issue, some folks say that they can recognise an MFD image in small print at say 15 feet or that MFD images stand out on web size images. I don't think that things work that way. I used to say that images don't care about the way they have been taken.
The nice thing here is that the panel consisted of folks seriously interested in photography but not being gearheads.
It can also be said that I am a middle road of shooter and I shoot the same way using MFD or mirrorless. The three years I was shooting MFD it was one of my mostly used systems. But, I use any system the same way. Tripod, mirror lock up, careful focusing, medium apertures. Also I seldom use flash outdoors.
Since I got the A7rII I have not used the P45+, essentially. In part this is a result of "the latest gear is most fun" syndrome, but also because the Sony does a good job on pretty much everything.
A small point is that pixel peeping you peep pixels. If we pixel peep on the P45+ we see pixels. There are 39000000 millions of them, but we see just a few. If we pixel peep on say my Sony Alpha 700, we still see a few pixels, but there are only 12000000 of them. To really see the benefits of pixel and pixel size we need to make large prints.
But, I really think that we have all the pixels we need now. Still see a lot of advantage of small pixels, but it is more about proper rendition of small detail.
Here are the images that were selected by the panel:
https://echophoto.smugmug.com/KSU/Choosen/Best regards
Erik
Eric. Viewers aren't pixel peepers or DR specialists. They care less if they were shot digitally or on film, or if it's medium format or 35mm, or whatever. People pick pictures they like based on content, style, lighting and personal preferences. Could you tell us which 11 they selected so we can tell if there was a common preference. And your pictures are all very nice. They have a bright appeal and they're not overdone like many landscape pictures.