Waterfall stacking: Can you leave your tripod and ND filter at home?

Anders W wrote:

What can you do to give the illusion of flowing water (or other similar motion) if you encounter a waterfall in broad daylight but left your ND filter and tripod at home? Or what can you do if the scene calls out for a UWA like the 7-14 or the Samyang/Rokinon 7.5/3.5 fisheye, neither of which takes filters (without a special holder) in the first place?

Inspired by discussions in this thread about the pros and cons of MFT WAs and in this thread about stacking I proposed a solution where you shoot a burst at a shutter speed that you can manage without the help of an ND and tripod and then merge and align the images in PP.

Does it work? And if so how well? I had to find out so went out in the beautiful (but cold, brrr) winter weather we had today to find about the only place in town with freely running water: the mighty "Iceland Falls" (Islandsfallet) of Uppsala.

First, I mounted my 14-45 on the E-M5 and shot the scene at ordinary "freezing" speed (f/5.1, 1/640 s).

Next, I stopped down as much as I could without going beyond the point (f/8) where diffraction starts to become a problem, lowered the shutter speed to 1/250, AFd and then switched to MF, set the camera to high-speed burst mode (9 fps) and fired until the buffer was full. This yielded 16 shots that were subsequently merged and aligned, with the fringe benefit of increasing DR by two EV.

Finally, I mounted the camera on a tripod, put on my home-grown variable ND filter (a linear polarizer on top of a circular one) and adjusted it until I got the shutter speed down to one second (which was close to, but not beyond, the point at which it starts to generate an undesirable blueish tint). But you do see, as expected, the polarizer effect in the sky.

Well, what do you think? I have some ideas myself but I like to hear yours first.