Landscapes...with no wind, moving water, etc. The technology works well for 'still life' images. I have to laugh at this being 'hugely innovative' – it's not just that Hasselblad has done this for a few years, I've had microscopy cameras (Zeiss AxioCam) that use sensor shift technology for over 12 years. They use a 1 MP sensor, shifted by full-pixel increments to avoid color interpolation (which increases color resolution but not spatial resolution), and also sub-pixel increments to increase spatial resolution – a 2x2 array yields a 5 MP image, and a 3x3 array yields a 12 MP image from that 1 MP sensor.
One key fact about sensor shift for increased spatial resolution - it works because the photosensitive area of each photodiode (pixel) is move in sub-pixel shifts, so more of the pixel's full area is sampled. However, microlenses take the light from the most of the area of the pixel (the entire area if they're gapless microlenses) and concentrate it on the photosensitive area of the photodiode. That means more light gathered and thus lower noise, but also as their fractional coverage increases, microlenses reduce or essentially eliminate the spatial resolution gain from sensor shift. You'll still get more megapixels in the output file, but that's just 'empty resolution' – bloated file size with no additional spatial resolution.
The multishot approach will still yield lower noise, but sensor shift isn't needed for that, several recent Canon bodies have multishot NR. Assuming a sensor with microlenses is being used, sensor shift is mainly a gimmick. If they use a sensor without microlenses, they're sacrificing light (and thus adding noise) in single-shot mode, not the best idea for a m4/3 sensor, and the idea of a still-life technology being used in a camera designed for portability/travel/etc. is a bit ludicrous. That's not to say they won't do it - telling consumers they're getting 40 MP images from a 16 MP sensor would likely help sell cameras (as long as they don't mention the empty resolution part).
