RE: Pixel Shift - I have done some pixel shift testing on B&W film (and some of us have discussed at length on the forum) to look at sharpness, “resolution” and color noise. I used a Lumix S1r. I found and posted a lot of interesting information online both theoretical (with math) and practical (with examples) that went beyond my own testing in the thread. I have scanned 35mm slides extensively as well, but the aim was simply print size for now on these.
On the slides I have scanned recently, sometimes the histogram shows more color data but the preview images are indistinguishable. Perhaps they are more flexible to edit or have finer color gradation? Pixel shift theoretically brings the color depth closer to the full bit depth of the sensor as I understand the math… but can our eyes even distinguish 11.8bits from 13.2bits on a screen using a 14bit sensor? How about from a 16bit sensor? One video I found showed the photographer got cleaner shadow details but again I have not tried it on color negative film as he did, only B&W and slides.
Pixel Shift is currently a hassle for most brands because they do not produce a RAW file in-camera and so it becomes even more time consuming if you intend to do it at high volumes unless you can create an action/automate it in some way. That said, there seems to be usefulness to the process for some needs. When I get a break from big work projects, I will do another similar test with color neg and slides larger than 35mm … hopefully 2-3 more lenses, too.
Is the pixel shift on a 16bit camera even more capable? Mathematically yes, but realistically I don’t know yet! Would love the chance to compare with people though.
@Digitizer’s 80/20 comment applies strongly here. Is it worth it? I would say no if it is exclusively for scanning at home and not making truly large prints. I would say yes if it is for an institution doing cultural heritage work, especially if they have the budget for it and the proper lens. I have yet to find an image that stumped the 14bit capture of my R5 and S1r. I use the pixel shift sparingly for top portfolio level images.
And @Harry is right, there are no definitive answers yet, I think. But I do see that most large institutions and cultural heritage capture is done with fancy 16bit, 100+MP specialty rigs now… at the same rate the very companies who advise for the standards for cultural heritage capture also sell the gear to do so… it isn’t exactly an independent standard in that regard.
For now the benefits I have personally seen are: less color noise, larger total pixel count without stitching, and I think it did a nicer job on the B&W grain resolution. But again, this is really chasing the dragon, most people for most uses won’t notice any of this.
EDIT: @Mark_Segal’s point is a more succinct version of what I said. Sorry Mark! You said it and I missed it 