I went through this recently. I had a project to shoot for, and with, my father, an architect. The brief was to document all his existing buildings/public art/landscapes over a year or two, whenever I'm not working. We did this 20 years ago with a Sinar P. We looked at all the options, including digital with one of my Leaf backs. We settled on an Arca Swiss F Line Compact and Kodak Ektar film, and the Mamiya 7 system loaded with Ektar. In ariving at this conclusion, we tested many many cameras and camera types, and given an over all budget of about $20k, no real time constraints, and an overarching interest in traveling light, the F Line and Mamiya 7 with film was the way to go.
If we had another $15k - $20K we would have used the Arca R3 with digital lenses. These digital wides are so difficult to focus on the ground glass that anything not in a mount is cumbersome, requiring tethered operation. The M2, while really nice, was just too cumbersome for what we had in mind, given the difficulty in focusing and the required tethered operation and the attendant batteries, chargers, wires, etc.
Digital on my existing 4x5 cameras was less than satisfactory because of the small movements required for digital and the difficulty of squaring the standards. My worn out Sinar P is unworkable because the gearing is both worn and not precise enough. My Linhof Technika IV doesn't cut it because, aside from rise, none of the front movements are geard and it won't take lenses wider than 90.
So we settled on film, and the mamiya 7 system, which I already have. We needed a 4x5 camera that is light, rigid, and has plenty of movements for wide lenses. The Technikardan 45s works, is REALLY compact, but, even used, is more expensive than an Arca F Line, and the bellows are $700. The F Line is more rigid, less compact, about the same weight, and new accessories such as wide angle bellows are less than the Linhof.
Bottom line, for digital architecture, a plate camera and digital lenses is the way to go.
