Ignoring DOF makes no sense to me: the circles of confusion at every point not in the exact focal plane limit resolution just as much as diffraction spots and the smearing by aberrations. And view camera motions do not really increase DOF: they only convert the region of adequately sharp focus from being a thin slab perpendicular to the lens axis to being a thin wedge at some oblique angle to the axis. It is no panacea for inadequate DOF, only dealing with the situation where all the elements of which one desires a sharp image lie roughly in an inclined plane. (And to avoid this discussion becoming excessively theoretical, I note that in practice it is extremely uncommon for DLSR users to use view camera motions like tilt, and I doubt that tilt lenses will ever have much effect on mainstream choices of interchangeable lens camera systems.)
Sorry for the long delay but you understand I'm travelling.
I can't speak with authority on large format usage but I'm very interested in the principles relating to any resolution advantage. You seem to be belittling any advantage whilst I'm under the delusion that there may be a real and substantail advantage, so bear with me while I try to work through the muddle.
Checking once again the Photodo results I see that the sterling performer is the Canon 200/1.8 with a rating of 90 at f4, followed by a Contax Planar T 50/1.7 with a rating of 88 at f8, Contax G Planar 45/2 with a rating of 88 at F4 and 87 at f8, and Canon 50/1.4 with a rating of 86 at f8.
I tend to think that the diffraction limited resolution of good 35mm lenses is closer to f11 than f8, which equates to f88 in an 8x12" format regarding DoF. In other words, if it were possible to produce a 16MP 8x12" sensor, then the resolution at f88 would be identical to a 1Ds2 at f11, but slightly greater at f64 than the 1Ds2 at f8.
Given appropriate technology, the DR of the 8x12" at f88 would be vastly superior.
The real point I'm making (assuming diffraction spot size is proportional to f stop) is that the large format at f32 produces double the resolution compared to f64, whereas one of the most expensive lenses that Canon produce (discontinued?) has only a marginal increase in resolution at f4 (compared with f8) but the same DoF as 8x12' at f32.
Furthermore, halve the f stop of the large format again to f16 and you've doubled again the resolution, whilst achieving the shallow DoF of 35mm F2. I know of no 35mm lens that increases in resolution by opening up to f2.
My conclusion is, if a DoF equivalent to 35mm F2 is required, then an 8x12" sensor with sufficient pixel count will deliver more than 4x the resolution. That's 4x horizontal and 4x vertical (assuming large format lenses can be truly diffraction limited at f16). Increasing the DoF through tilt, which I agree doesn't always produce the intended result, is a bonus.
If there's a flaw in my reasoning, please set me right .