My contention is that when the product is named Autopano and makes great play of the auto aspect then one should not have to 'play' with it.
Yes, you can understand the "Auto" in Autopano like this way.
I do. What does "Auto" mean to you?
I drive a car with an auto gearbox - I don't then expect to have to change gear manually.
On the other side, then you shouldn't play also with a DX lens on an FX sensor.
Why not - when shaved is it any longer a 'DX lens'?
If I look at the CPs with the 16mm FE it's really ok. With this lens you shoot a zenith image and don't use the extreme corners. Then it's better to use these "centered" CPs.
And of course shooting that pattern with the Nikon 10.5mm FE on a DX sensor would work just as well.
I dare say that adding a zenith shot when shooting with the shaved Nikon 10.5mm on a FX sensor would also aid the auto stitch in the zenith area.
But you have yourself demonstrated that it;'s possible to get a perfect stitch without that zenith shot if you 'play' with APG. And others have shown that PTGui can do it without one having to 'play' with it.
I don't doubt that APG is capable of producing perfect stitches, it's just that it doesn't seeb able to achieve that automatically
as frequently as it should, nor as frequently as PTGui.
APG and pano shooting is much too versatile in order to find a simple solution for all cases, isn't it ?
But as you yourself point out APG can find obvious CPs when you use the CP Editor that it doesn't find them normal Detect - why is that?
And why can PTGui frequently do it with no fuss when APG cannot?