But you most likely would not be able to use your large format lenses on a back anyway. Lets not forget that large format lenses (I believe) where made less sharp than their 35mm and MF counterparts relying on the size of the film to make up for it. This does not work with sensors since the lens needs to resolve the light for the size of the pixel.
This is why 9 or 10 micron pixels are good for film lenses... and digital specialist lenses do not have the image circle for 617.
Also, light splits as it goes through glass causing the three primaries to come into focus in slightly different planes. Since film is made in layers, it did not matter. With a sensor though all three primaries have to come in focus in the same plane or very close to it (because it is impossible to make this happen) so that the primary(s) out of focus does not spill into a neighboring pixel causing apo-chromatic aberrations. Extremely difficult to engineer which is why lenses have increased in price so much, and much smaller pixel size is futile.
This is what I have come to understand about current optics when dealing with digital sensors. If I am wrong please correct me.
Schneider has a more detailed description on their website.
We have to differentiate between the science and the sales hype, but I have heard that theory, and read the Schneider website... and Apo-digitars are cheaper than the Hasselblad-Ziess film lenses are they not?
One of the complications of digital sensors is that they vignette if the angle of incidence of the light to the sensor is extreme, which is a complication for very wide non-retrofocus lenses (e.g Super-Angulon 47XL). Angled micro-lenses could help if all lenses had their rear element the same distance from the sensor...
I have a Leica-made Novoflex 400mm lens, and I look forward to seeing if it is sharper than the same FOV from a cropped Apo-Digitar 210mm