It is certainly true that short lenses require fine focus because of the very shallow depth of focus. And it is true that the recent 6x9 view cameras generally have very rigid and finely geared movement because of the shallower angles needed with short lenses to get a given Scheimpflug effect. That said, I have gotten critically sharp results from a 47 SA using both a cheap and an expensive 6x12 back. No movements there--coverage is marginal at best--and I tend to always use smallish stops. But I judge the results at least on a par with my Pentax 67 45mm lens, and maybe even a bit better.

My Sinar F is not usually considered the ideal camera for that application, and I have to be committed and meticulous about focusing it, but it works. With the Wide Angle Bellows 2, all the movements one might need for 6x9 are possible with that lens even on a flat board. It's maybe no match in terms of sharpness with a Mamiya 7, but the Mamiya lacks the same image management tools.

Regarding bokeh, I learned a while back that the aperture shape is only part of the story, and maybe not an important part. Some lens have harsh and edgy bokeh even wide open, when the aperture is round. And lenses that are designed to snap into high MTF at the relevant spatial frequencies seem to not have that lovely smooth transition from focused to unfocused. Even a Super Angulon might have that issue, as do most plasmats, at least when compared to and old tessar or a Sonnar.

Rick "whose roll film results at least make the most of a Nikon scanner" Denney