Pete, how did you mean this sentence?
Well my thoughts are currently in 'draft' form and I haven't finished my own little summary with a touch of math - however, I can say that I think that the lens line pair stats of even the highest quality lenses currently available indicate that they are reaching the outer bounds of real world limits as far as their ability to match the resolving power that the chip manufacturers are producing...especially at the edges as far as resolution goes. when you consider you haevlittle movement potential with wides - you are in fact paying a heck of a lot of money for a lens which is best used in a flat shot or with some very simple lateral stitching...
This is why I am not 'upgrading' from 33 and 39 megapixels...for my purposes there is no point...
Secondly, even at 'only' 39 megapixels - technique becomes absolutely critical in order to get the best out of this equipment OR to put it in another way - I am not surprised to see lets say a NikonD3x or equivalent - on first glance deliver MFD type resolution in normal shooting. These SLR cameras are just easier to use and their lenses 'lower' resolving power are better matched to the lower resolving power of the chips.
The MFD backs deliver far better colour and DR etc etc..however critical sharpness ie getting the absolute best from the chips in this area - is VERY dependent on using the very best glass - AND the utmost care in shooting...
the writer above pretty much reflects also another real world fact - employing shift and tilt in clumsy fashion - will actually degrade IQ and with wide angle lenses - well we simply dont have the image circle size to employ the movements.
Stitching and panning around a nodal point is ok with any lens ..but one doesn't need exotic lenses to do just simple stitches...
hence my 'eccentric' compromise - Alpa for flat shooting with wides ( I keep what i already have) and arTec for longer - 40mm WHR up to 135mm lenses - because they will give me the image circle large enough to use 'some' tilt and shift at same time.
which brings me to final point...
ask yourself do you 'really' need a technical camera and all the specialised 'cost' associated ...I have agonised over this decision for a year..before giving in to my gearheadedness..and only after trying out a whole range of traditional systems from Linhoff 679 /Sinar ( P3) / Rollie xact etc..
the limiting factor on all this technical gear is the physical dimension of the chips - compared to film ( 4x5/ 8x10 ) the chip areas are tiny..
So we have teh gods of technology delivering better resolving power than teh best scanned LF film - in an area the size of a postage stamp...the machinery of view cameras is just not designed to handle such micro movements easilly...and optical design is reaching its limits...
I dont mean to put you off..it is just that a lot of shots I see with this gear - can be made by cheaper gear..and a lot of shots made by (relatively ) cheaper gear cant be made by these more expensive systems - think telephoto type landscapes - even a 150MM ( or longer) lens used so well in the examples from the recent Arizona workshop for example..well these teles don't exist in technical camera size..
there are signicant mobility and set-up compromises involved in shooting outdoors with technical cameras and movement..
ok end of my lat night 'dump'.