It is getting interesting here, I complement you Rainer for getting Sinar to build your dream camera - BRAVO.
But, this works for your workflow, for me as a fellow Architectural photographer I have a different workflow.
For me a sliding back and tilt would be 2 features I absolutely would NOT have in a camera for Architecture.
1. The sliding back looks too clumsy for my taste, and I have no use for it at all. I also use ground glass to compose my images, but I would rather take my back on and off - this ensures me that no dust have sneaked in to the censor, to give me hours extra work in PP.
If you shoot tethered (a lot of Architectural Photographers explore this option for their workflow) then the sliding back is also not useful.
2. If you ever tried to chim an ALPA you will notice that 1/100 yes 1/100 of an mm difference will change your focus by 1 meter on a 35XL lens. I would be very worried by adding tilt to a high precision camera. The same goes for the precision of a sliding adapter.
The Arca looks cool, and I like the lens feature. But tilt - no thanks. It also has limited movements for stitching.
For me the real competition is between the Alpa Max and the Cambo RS
nice to see you here in LL again ...
thanks for the flowers, yes its nice to have the camera now, especially because its made beautyfull and precise. i like good and precise handcraft work.
about the decision between the cameras i see the things little bit wider:
if someone will change today from 4x5" to mf his decision will be in my opinion between two concepts:
the sinar concept which is sliding back based and 4x5" oriented ( in terms of working style ) and
the alpa concept, which is viewfinder based and comes out from the older alpa 12 series, often used in the film days for travel and landscape photography.
because the alpa is longer in the market and successfull there are several players who ( more or less good ) "copy" this concept, so in the viewfinder based systems you have more choices than just the alpa..... as the cambo, arca, horseman and others.
lets see how people who change now from 4x5" to digital will see the cameras and the workflow which is implicated by them.
about your points:
the artec is not clumsy. you should see the camera to see how small it is.
what you write about dust is exactly one of my argument against removing the back:
you have to control it before every shot if dust settled in, after you have removed the sensor.
yes, its done fast,- but you have to check before EVERY shot ...? ... i dont like this if it has not to be.
although there is no wrong or right in such workflow decision, the artec is a joy to work with. at first because it works so simple and smooth. no worrys about where to put the sensor, how to cover it, if there might appeared new dust on the next shot, no thought about not touching the groundglass necessary with the fingers ... and so on.
i work now since app. 3 weeks with the artec and the dust behavior is amazing.
if the sensor is clean i can work SEVERAL days without any spot of dust on it.
i never had a camera which is similar dust-free.
do you think you would say the same, if you wouldn't work now for longer time successful with your system? i still cant see the logic why it should be better to remove for every shot the sensor and mount the groundglass on the camera, if this is not necessary.
i think its uncomfortable to deal with the removed back, to lay it down careful, to cover it, to check for dust before mounting it again, to take care that it is mounted well .,..... similar act than with the groundglass .... its complicate. if it has not to be, why should one want this hazle, if he doesnt already has his system and got acostumbrated to it in many shots.
the alpa is very nice made and i love good handcraft work. but so is the sinar.
its a joy to touch it and everything feels smooth and 100% precise.
both companies have a lot of experience how to make cameras, you feel that.
dont worry about 1/100 tolerances. the sinar and the alpa are both absolute on top in this.
its fun to have tilt after some years of working with the gottschalt without one.
i enjoy it a lot ...
and there are absolute no sharpness problems with the artec if it is put to its zero position.
its not more, not less usefull or useless as it was in 4x5" cameras.
the mechanism is made from the beginning with the knowledge that it just should be done if it is 100% secure and easy to reset, - you will see.
useless its only for alpa and cambo users, because they cannot use it .... ( lol )
i dont expect that a lot of alpa users will change now their systems fast.
its really expensive and the alpas are very nice cameras.
( i personally do not have a similar feel if touching the cambos, i saw a prototype of the rs in the US and i cant say it impressed me ).
further i dont advice to noone to change things ( esp. in the digital world ) after they work good. but how will decide people who come from 4x5" film? there are a lot who still have been waiting for the "right" system to come.
beside myself , this is the main "target" group i saw for the artec.