what makes this puzzle interesting is the two competing agendas that play themselves out:
1) the optimal system, maximum flexibility, usually pricey, or....
2) a camera that meets a specific need, usually for a moderate cost, but not so flexible.
Too often the "system" approach, while great on paper, just ends up costing too much to make sense. Imagine what a full Sinar setup, view camera, Hy6, lenses, backs, etc. would really cost.
On the other hand, a bunch of different specific solutions (MFDB for one use, view camera for another, smaller solution for portability) seems like an excess amount of hardware, often not interchangeable and when all added up, is a bit much as well.
So we end up shifting through the all solutions available to get the best overall answer - opting either for system simplicity, least $, or max functionality. Toss in some concerns about redundancy, and its a rather interesting cocktail (dilemma?).
Oh for the days of Hassy 500 C, a couple of film backs, a few rental lenses if necessary, and there you were. Same for the Leica M2 or the Nikon FTN. They seemed like full systems, very flexible. Have we lost something along the way? If so, how do we get it back?
Anyone have the same impressions, or is this just the morning ramble? (apologies....)