Do you believe the S1R will have better image resolution than the new Sony A7RIV while both using pixel shift for landscapes? Especially when implementing mode 2 on the S1R.
I've no actual data, but experience with the S1R definitely showed how useful mode 2 was for non studio shots. A lot will depend on how the Sony software adds the component images together.
But in the real world I do have to ask if anyone will notice ;-)
Excellent as the multishot mode was it raised lots of other questions for me...
In looking at my 187MP test images I was struck by just how good they
could be and how much care it will take to get the best from any such setup.
Even using the excellent TS-E50 lens and a hefty tripod I was getting variable results when looking at the finest (outdoor) detail. I'm minded to think that the number of people who will get genuinely effective use out of the multishot will be a distinct sub-set of those who try it. I'm not even sure how often I'd choose to use it myself, and I do architectural work as part of our commercial photography (having it as an option would be nice though).
Currently I'm using a 5Ds for most of my work and 50MP gives me images that are rarely too low resolution for client use (sometimes just the opposite). In terms of print size 50MP gives an amount of detail that easily makes for any prints people are likely to buy. Sure I like the idea of giant prints (largest to date is 47 feet long) but I quickly realised that people willing (or able) to display such stuff are in short supply here in the UK :-(
Of course my concerns won't impinge on the 'better' camera = 'better' photography mindset ;-)
That said I'm sure many may be tempted by 'never mind the subject/composition/exposure - count those megapixels'
Whoops, not what the camera marketing people want to hear - I'll get my coat ;-)