To envision what I am talking about with alternate sets of movements that arrive at the same net effect, try just eliminating all the parts of the camera from your imagination, and thinking only of where the lens and the film are in relation to each other. Then, start adding back parts of the camera, thinking of all the different ways you could arrange them in order to keep the lens and film exactly the same in relation to each other. The more you ignore where everything on the camera except the lens and film are placed, and keep only these two things in mind, the more intuitive and seamless it will be getting the ignored parts where they need to go quickly and easily. Don't let all the details of the movements distract you from the fact that all they are doing is placing the lens and film in a certain relationship to each other.

Any camera but a monorail is limited in movements – a compromise of sorts. The Super Speeds are no different. My point is simply that they can be very effective and economical field cameras for general-purpose landscape situations. What are you shooting landscape-wise that requires so much movement?

You are speaking of relying on rear tilts and swings in order to achieve a canted plane of focus. It makes no sense to me that you use rear tilts and swings as the primary method of canting your plane of focus, since you seemed like you really needed rear movements, which I took to mean that you really needed to control converging lines in your images. Rear movements do cant the plane of focus, but they are by far the least preferred way to do so, because doing so also alters the shape of the things in the image. Front tilts and swings cant the plane of focus without doing this. You need not alter the shape of your image in order to lay the plane of focus out across your scene. Using rear movements as the primary way of orienting your plane of focus makes convergence control frustrating, to say the least. If convergence is a concern, the position of the film should be dictated by how you want converging lines to appear. However, doing what you are doing, the position of the film is being dictated by where you want your plane of focus to appear.

To achieve non converging lines, all you need is one thing: the film must be parallel to the plane in the scene that you want to appear flat – that you want to not appear to converge in the image. Say it is two trees growing straight up. You can angle the rail upward to get what you want in the shot, then bring the lens and film back to level. Or, you can just leave the film and lens level to begin with, and raise the front standard to get your composition. You end up with the same effect. Do you want to do one movement to get what you need, or three? Then, if you decide that you need to cant your plane of focus, why would you do it with the back when that will throw off the parallelism you just worked to achieve? You wouldn't. You would just cant the plane of focus using front swing or tilt. So, back level, front rise, then front tilt or swing. No rear movements were used at all.