Do both Helicon and Zerene do a good job of correcting for 'ghosts' in landscape photography? Often a leaf or a limb blows, and Adobe HDR software, for example, has a box to check to eliminate any sort of image-doubling. Does stacking software do something like this to make details coincide?
Kirk
Just wanted to add to this discussion.
Neither of the current software for stacking can handle really any motion. Some folks feel the ES shutter option can't handle motion (which I find not true), but Helicon and Zerene both create massive aliasing with motion, even the slightest.
The Stacking feature by design works great with the XF, I have used it on Landscapes where I knew the foreground would be out of focus and not moving, (rocks). But for macro outdoors, I quickly gave up, as even with a wind shield the motion caused too much problems. Thus the reason P1/DT shows the demo on a toy train engine, indoors, non moving.
I preferred the Helicon workflow and still try to use it when I can.
Note, it's the same type of problem that pixel shift sensors have i.e aliasing.
Lots more tech needs to be applied IMO for general use outdoors. Attempting to clone back, is time consuming and actually quite difficult since both software are warping to a certain degree to get everything into a single plane of focus and thus objects will not line up correctly that when you attempt to clone back from one of the originals.
Paul Caldwell