While that Alpa thing sounds interesting, and I'm sure the lense are fine, I cannot imagine shooting a job where I left the job hoping that I'd focused the camera properly. I also can't imagine shooting a job where I'd have to "bracket focus" either. It's just too nerveracking, the thought of it. But I guess you could have a MacBook Pro there, beside you, with CaptureOne tethered, to check focus.
The other reminder about this conversation is: NO ONE has yet compared the 1ds3 to the Phase/Leaf/Hasselblad. So, to me, all this talk about comparisons is silly until the 1ds3 hits the street. The 1ds3 is the first camera, in my mind, that will give MF a run for its money. So let's just be reminded what we're talking about here.
The other reminder is the tilt shift lenses for Canon. If the Canon is tripod mounted, and you use one of the 24, 45, or 90 lenses, and you shift between frames, the 1ds3 in effect becomes almost a 44MP camera, for landscape or architecture, (or people, even). When you shift, it lines up almost pixel to pixel. Shoot a top, middle, and bottom, and stitch them, and bam, a very high rez image. And if you took LiquidNails and glued a tripod mount to the lenses, instead of to the body, and fix the lens and let the body move instead of the lens, the resulting files WOULD line up pixel to pixel, making the stitch almost effortless. I did that all the time when I shot Canon; it's a breeze. Double your money, double your fun.
Speaking of fun, I agree with Kirk -- I tend to explore more options with the Canon than with MF. The Canon is so effortless you just yank it off the tripod and go roam around. The Contax/Phase is much more "serious", and ends up feeling like "work" much of the time. Don't discount that factor.