Are you not aware of the software which combines several images (shot at
different distance settings) to give you extended DoF?  (With a bit of luck
I'll find the reference to it!)

Having used a 4x5 technical camera and also owning a 4x5 monorail, I know
the frustrations.

What lens are you shooting?

Why are you limited to f/16?

The hyperfocal distance for the 50mm wideangle at f/32 is about 4-1/2
feet.  Everything from 2'3" to infinity should be in apparent focus.

Are you worried about the diffraction softness with the smaller
aperture?

An important factor to take into account is how large of prints are you
making?  If for example you are making fairly small prints like 8 x 10
you can really stop down the aperture and the effect of diffraction
will not be noticeable.  If on the other hand you are making poster
sized prints and trying to get everything out of the film that is
possible you probably will be limited to somewhere in the range of f/16
to f/32.  If you are just making 8 x 10 prints you could likely shoot
at f/64 and still get a fairly sharp print.

Scott

Use a wide angle lens and you won't have this problem. If you want to
stick to your current lens then shoot from slightly higher up so that
the foreground is further away. If using a tripod then do your
composition and raise the central column and then shoot.

Nice pictures, both of them.

Both your examples, especially the Formby one, really are typical of the
situation where people would use tilt to give the focus they need.  However,
I do think you are being more cautious with your aperture than you need.
f16 may be a good rule of thumb in the 35mm world, but shooting 6x7 you
shouldn't be afraid of f22.  f32, even, will be fine unless you want rather
large enlargements.  I suggest you take some test shots at different
apertures, with each lens you have, and enlarge them to your 'usual' size
and to your 'maximum' size to see what your real-world limits are on
aperture are.  As has already been suggested, it's worth doing some (more)
tests to see where you want to regard as the hyperfocal distances for each
lens/aperture as well.  I think you'll find you can go smaller than f16
without diffraction becoming a major issue.

I think in your first example, stopping down might have been all you'd need
for the DoF you wanted, though the second one might still have needed some
tilt - hard to tell for sure on a web-picture, obviously.

I hate to say it, but I think you should look at this option again.  A 6x9
field or monorail camera will give you the movements you want and will be
much lighter than the RB.  Yes it takes a bit more time to set up, but it
isn't that onerous.  I came, some time ago, to the conclusion that no one
system could do everything I wanted - so in MF I have rangefinders for
mobility and speed, SLRs, a TLR, and 'view camera' systems.  Adding a view
camera option to what you have with your RB need not add an outrageous
amount of weight/bulk (and if weight was your biggest concern, you wouldn't
be using an RB anyway!) and nor need it be very expensive.

My favourite 6x7 / 6x9 'view' system is an Arca-Swiss monorail.  The older
type are not expensive used and there's no shortage of 'the bits' for them.
These are very light cameras, but rigid, and versatile.  You could put
together a modest set of lenses for very little outlay, used, to experiment
with this approach - especially as you say you don't much like wide-angles,
since it is the wides that tend to be expensive.

The other camera I use for this sort of thing is a bit less flexible, but is
both more compact and cheaper.  This is a (somewhat modified) Graflex
Century Graphic - a small folding camera.  You can't use really long lenses
on one of these, but if front tilt and a bit of rise and fall are all you
really want by way of movements, it is a very nice little piece of kit.  You
can fold it up with a 'standard' lens in place, and it is very light.  It's
easier to use in landscape than portrait orientation (no revolving back) and
that's the biggest drawback, really: you don't get more than slight front
tilt in portrait orientation unless you modify the front standard.

Either of these options would have worked perfectly for the two examples you
posted links to.

You can get some Ukrainian made lenses with tilt as well as shift - the 45mm
is OK, the 55mm really rather good, and the 65mm somewhere between the other
two.  None of these has a leaf shutter though so they don't help with your
RB - but you can get them in Pentax 6x7 mount.  that might be an option to
consider that would be cheaper than the Zoerk gadget.

It's a shame Mamiya never copied Rollei's tilt front idea...

Peter

Use the hyperfocal distance, moron. Who says everything should be
sharp, anyway? Why do they let idiots like you by cameras?

Fuckhead....dipshit

A camera with tilt is probably the way to explore. I have used the
Hasselblad Flexbody until it was stolen: nice, easy to carry and fast to
use.

The landscapes on my website were shot with a Mamiya 7 and 50, 65,80 mm
lenses. Not quite the pictures you take (personally I prefer
out-of-focus foregrounds to concentrate on far-away subjects). I
routinely work handheld (the Mamiya is good at this), so, except in
summer, I shoot around 1/60 @ f/11. Enlargements are 17"x 28" minimum
(my forthcoming exhibit will show 30"x40" prints).

As the prints sell quite well, I am investing in LF (+ tripod ;)

All the best for your search,

Patrick
to reply, remove both hyphens in address
web: www.patricksmith.fr