Indeed, it's not a Leica.
As for the design intent, I would respectfully disagree with that point. Even if there was clear evidence that engineering intended for the camera to be shot as you have suggested, I can't think of any reason why such a design philosophy would be employed.
True, the lenses are superb throughout the aperture range. The 50mm is, as I am told, legendary for its ability to focus at what... 1/2' to infinity?, at f32? But for the longer lenses, I'm going after portraits and bokeh, and I need nothing beyond f5.6, and that supplies me all the sharpness I need, where I need it, for effect, which in my case means an inch or so of DOF, if that.
The shots of the sisters and the children, done with a tripod, were f8-f11, but I needed increased DOF based on the compositions.
I think the RB is quite versatile. I can easily hump a large Lowes bag with the body (1 back) and two lenses, a Luna Pro meter (I take incident reads for all scenes) and 10 rolls of Acros 120. It's a heavy pack, but I can't complain for the output. No pain, no gain.
🙂
Nuts is when I pack my Besseler backpack with the F4s, the D70s, the Tamron 28-75, a Nikon AF 18-35, all in the bottom section, the RB67 with the 90mm on it in the top section, and side pockets full of film, meter in the front pouch along with whatever else I need. Nuts, I say. Nuts. But it works.
C.