Another good recent paper looking at accuracy is this one :
Remondino, F., Spera, M. G., Nocerino, E., Menna, F., and Nex, F. (2014). State of the art in high density image matching. The Photogrammetric Record, 29(146), 144-166.
Photomodeler is not one of the packages compared, but Photoscan is. One thing you should look at closely with Photomodeler is how their SmartPoint technology has developed over the past few years. This is what they call the automated generation of relative matching points between images to provide a solution for the interior and exterior orientation of the cameras. I had heard that SmartPoint wasn't very reliable but my information may be out of date. Before SmartPoint coded targets were needed in the scene to link the images and to perform calibration.
This group used Photomodeler to produce a model of an entire cathedral:
Martínez, S., Ortiz, J., Gil, M. L., Rego, M. T. (2013). Recording Complex Structures Using Close Range Photogrammetry: The Cathedral of Santiago De Compostela. The Photogrammetric Record, 28(144), 375-395.
They do note at the end that the project might have benefited from the new generation of multi-view software (like Photoscan). They used check-points to test the accuracy of the model against a total station and usually got an average error of about 1.3mm. The first paper shows that sub-mm accuracy is attainable at close range with most of the new packages they tested.