I think the tech camera use case is still pretty strong. It's not about the backs, but about the camera and lenses.
I use tilt and/or shift in almost all my pictures. Sure I could alter my style to not require it, but it would be a different shooting style and look. I think that perspective control through shift and DoF control through tilt gives a much larger difference in look than the subtle differences you can see in color rendition etc (to me that part is just different, can't say one is better than the other, but then I do landscape not skin tones).
Sure there are tilt-shift lenses for the 135 systems, but the key focal length 35mm is missing (I use the 1.4x teleconverter on the TS-E 24 II a lot when I shoot Canon), and the optical quality except for Canon's new versions are a little lacking, and longer focal lengths (90mm+) are missing too. With tech cameras there are more focal lengths to choose from which I find important. So far I have six lenses with my tech camera, and I use them all quite frequently, and still like to have more .
Despite that I have only a 33 megapixel back (for economical reasons) for my Linhof Techno and I have to struggle more with dynamic range than I would with a D800 I prefer to use this for my landscape photography. And it's not the back that's the attraction, it's the camera and lenses.
However, I think the tech cameras is moving in the wrong direction and I'm a bit worried about that. There is a limit to how precise you can make a camera with movements. Instead of accepting that and say the sweet-spot is f/11 at 60 megapixels (larger apertures and higher resolution may make parallelism issues etc visible to the pixelpeeper), cameras are made more rigid movements are reduced, lens designs are changed to super-corrected retrofocus, so in the end you'll have a camera just as limited as a DSLR tilt-shift lens with the same lens look with the only feature higher resolution. I'm not super-thrilled by focal plane shutters either, it's probably the future as copal is discontinued but I think keeping the tech cam more different from a DSLR is an advantage instead of making it more similar. Because one of the key attractions of using MF is that one is using something different.
I use tilt and/or shift in almost all my pictures. Sure I could alter my style to not require it, but it would be a different shooting style and look. I think that perspective control through shift and DoF control through tilt gives a much larger difference in look than the subtle differences you can see in color rendition etc (to me that part is just different, can't say one is better than the other, but then I do landscape not skin tones).
Sure there are tilt-shift lenses for the 135 systems, but the key focal length 35mm is missing (I use the 1.4x teleconverter on the TS-E 24 II a lot when I shoot Canon), and the optical quality except for Canon's new versions are a little lacking, and longer focal lengths (90mm+) are missing too. With tech cameras there are more focal lengths to choose from which I find important. So far I have six lenses with my tech camera, and I use them all quite frequently, and still like to have more .
Despite that I have only a 33 megapixel back (for economical reasons) for my Linhof Techno and I have to struggle more with dynamic range than I would with a D800 I prefer to use this for my landscape photography. And it's not the back that's the attraction, it's the camera and lenses.
However, I think the tech cameras is moving in the wrong direction and I'm a bit worried about that. There is a limit to how precise you can make a camera with movements. Instead of accepting that and say the sweet-spot is f/11 at 60 megapixels (larger apertures and higher resolution may make parallelism issues etc visible to the pixelpeeper), cameras are made more rigid movements are reduced, lens designs are changed to super-corrected retrofocus, so in the end you'll have a camera just as limited as a DSLR tilt-shift lens with the same lens look with the only feature higher resolution. I'm not super-thrilled by focal plane shutters either, it's probably the future as copal is discontinued but I think keeping the tech cam more different from a DSLR is an advantage instead of making it more similar. Because one of the key attractions of using MF is that one is using something different.