The question at hand though is not whether or not poser should have more 'high end' features or a different way of doing things, but what in poser delivers better results and how does that affect compatability between versions of poser and between different software packages.  I dont think the point can be made, as a generality, that equivalent quality can be obtained via the basic material room as it can via the advanced material room.  Obviously some things look just fine with a really good texture in some situations.  But most things look better with advanced shaders.

I cant argue that Stonemasons stuff looks great.  I've been in awe of his work since day one.  That being said, you generally are looking at the textures from further away or as a background to the main focal point of the image.  Painted concrete, metal or stone in the background is not the same as reasonably close-up human skin, cloth, leather etc.   I cant recall any clothing items or character sets that I have bought(recently) that dont use some of the shader system.  I am very picky in what I buy so if the preview renders are only so so I dont invest.

 

Quote - "Are these high-end examples working more like it would work if I was using, by way of a vaguely comparative example, Reality Studio with Daz... or LuxRender with Poser?

These" high end examples" are what I mean when I say you need more than  geeky, complicated node math Shaders to create good FINAL renders
(as their galleries demonstrate)

You need a Modern lighting  system with true area lights with true area shadows.
 A "physical Sky"system for outdoor renders so you can dispense with ridiculous "Sky dome" props,  true, Fast GI engine for Gi animation renders etc etc or all of your
cumbersome geek friendly wire node shaders& materials dont really mean much IMHO.

Cheers