"The mechanical aspects of handling the camera, getting the exposure to correspond with some sort of zone system, the struggle to overcome the limitations of the camera in respect of dynamic range, precise calculations of CoCs in the field for DoF purposes etc etc etc, can be distractions from the contemplation of artistic matters whilst in the field, gazing at the view."
My question to you Ray is, just what the heck is photography anyway? One thing stands out to me. You and I have very different ideas of photogrpahy. To me, the "mechanical aspects of handling the camera" are a very integral, necessary and enjoyable part of photography. I find making photographs satisfying, not distracting. I frequently remove all of the "mechanical aspects of handling the camera" and just view and watch. Using a camera isn't at all distracting from the art of photogrpahy. No more than handling brushes and paint is a distraction for painters. Is the mechanical aspects of playing a piano be a distraction for the pianist? Or a pleasure? Distractions are minimized by practice, making the mechanical aspects second nature, requiring little or no conscience attention. Could I get a player piano, call myself a pianist, and eliminate the need to practice?
"I would like my camera to be able to accurately record the scene in front of me ... as much as possible because it increases my options." If you put more emphasis on "as much as possible," you already have that camera. Adams developed the Zone System to increased his options, not make photography more mechanical and distracting.