Agreed 100% that tools are not the most important part, but the negative reactions in this thread are mostly about Mark's comment that the usage of a given type of tools (MFDB) defines high quality in landscape photography.
He is the one focusing on tools and commenting negatively on what other people do using his authority as one of the officials at LL.
spot on!
The approach that Mark suggests, using the best MFDB on a camera body built with tight tolerances and carefully matched to the individual MFDB, completed with the best lenses and exact focusing is probably what is needed to extract optimum quality.
So, technically speaking, I agree with Mark's writing.
while the context is correct - i.e. the spacing of lens & sensor has to be adjusted super accurately - the claim the Alpas were the only cameras you can do that with is... technically ... incorrect. The Rm3D is the
king of the hill is this regard - no doubt about that. So his claim is plain and simply
wrong.
The Alpa also do not offer Tilt/Swing ... only in conjunction with an adpater; but Alpa only provides one for longer lenses. Correct me if I am wrong... but isn't tilt/swing one of the "tools" landscape photographers used to use frequently? So the Alpa is also limited.
While the Alpas are beautifully made cameras and the back shimming is an extremely helpful feature ... they are not the most accurate and also not the most versatile tech cameras. This is a fact.
Finally you can also adjust the digital large format lenses on all the other large format lenses by yourself. Of course you have to see whether the groundglass is still usable for focussing if you do so. But if not you could also re-adjust the groundglass (for instance, well, with shims). I've meticulously adjusted my LF lenses to focus accurately at infinity. My groundglass is still fully usable for focussing. In case that I need it for focussing at all... mostly I only use it for composition (I prefer a laser disto for focussing mostly). Well, I don't want to bore you with talk about my kit or my workflow... but Mark's claim simply does not apply to my setup (and I use neither an Alpa nor an Rm3D). That simple.
The P65+ is limited re long exposure. Again something not exactly uncommon in landscape photography. So in this regard it's clearly not the "king of the hill".
Resolution wise the Aptus II 12 is "king of the hill".
As to usability - especially on a tech camera - Leaf backs also provide very nice features on the LCD (zooming, moveable grid lines to check vertical and/or horizontal lines in the capture... which is, admittedly, mostly useful for architectural photography but still a nice feature also for landscape photography. Just to name two features). Too, the LCD on the Leaf backs is much better. Both aspects also apply to the Aptus II 10, of course (not only to the Apt.II 12).
So... sorry, no, the P65+ is not the "king of the hill". It's beyond doubt
one of the top products, but not the only one.
As to the comparision to Hasselblad I guess Mark's findings would be different if he could have mastered to use the cameras and the Phocus software correctly.
There is no discussion about these aspects in his article. Just claims without further proofs.
So ... the "Sturm und Drang" reaction of people is well understandable...