Another 7x17 question...
Inspired by a response in another thread, I again call on the wisdom of the 7x17 (and larger) shooters of this forum for further advice.
Due to the typical long lead times and high cost of 7x17 cameras, unless a great deal on a pristine used camera falls in my lap, I am considering building my own camera. Keep in mind that while I'm reasonably handy, I'm no master craftsman. So, I'd like to keep the design as simple as possible. To that end, I am considering building a camera with NO, or very limited, back movements. The inspiration for this idea is Patrick Alt's Alt View 410 WA. This is a non-folding 4x10 camera with a rigid back and only rise and tilt on the front. Due to the fact that it has no movements and doesn't fold up, the result is a camera, that is very light (although not exactly compact) and extremely rigid.
In my case, I would have the full compliment of front moves (rise/fall, tilt, shift and swing).
So, all you 7x17 shoters, which back moves to you use, how much and why. If it's just due to the fact that you can't reach the front standard controls when using long lenses, would you still NEED rear movements if you limited yourself to using shorter lenses.
In the 4x5 format, I use back tilt quite a bit. In 4x5, I'm not a huge ultrawide and back tilt for the "looming" foreground kind of guy, but I do use it on occasion. I have found on 4x10 - a format with similar aspect ratio to 7x17, I use rear tilt a LOT less often, and probably could get by without it and rely solely on front tilt if I had to.
Keep in mind, I only shoot landscapes and in 4x10 (and 7x17), and I only shoot horizontals - no vertical panoramas for me.
So, with those constraints (horizontal landscapes with no really long lenses), could you be happy with a camera that had NO back movements? If not, what is the minimum compliment of rear movements you would find acceptable?