As anyone experimented with this technology for architectural or landscape technique? And find it worth it?
Unless you are a professional photographer and make very large prints, I can't see the advantage but My eyes are in their late seventies.....

A photographer was telling me about a camera he had that did it about 15 years ago. I forget what camera it was, but I think it was medium format. Sounded pretty slick, as long as nothing in frame is in motion.

Everything has to be DEAD still otherwise you get motion artefacts when the software tries to interpret what's happened between images. Ideal for the studio environment, possible outside but conditions have to be ideal.

I tried to use it outdoors on a day with seemingly no wind. Shot quite a few exposures, some of them 16 frame, some 4 frame. None of them was a complete success. The one with two people walking through it came out quite strange.

One interesting feature - you can process parts of a 16 frame exposure as a 4 frame - I was not expecting that.

This was with a Sony A7RIV. I would say on a tripod, in a studio, shooting still life, only. Other people say it worked for them - maybe I forgot to press the magic button, or maybe I have to stand on one leg while singing a song in Japanese?

Some film photographers use it for scanning large format negatives.

What is the purpose of Pixel shifting ?

The examples I've seen online don't appear any sharper than the originals, in fact they appeared less sharp and softer overall.

Primary motivation is supposed to be to avoid Bayer matrix interpolation by moving the sensor so every pixel is read with each colour filter.

I have heard it suggested that this could be good for art reproduction.