>>4454446
>full frame only made sense on film
Wrong. Only 645 and above makes sense on film. 35mm film is quite low resolution.
You have to understand that sensor size is more an issue of quality control than muh equivalence shitflinging. The smaller the sensor, the less surface area for defects to manifest, ergo less of the batch needs to be thrown out. Hence the current price to dimensions ratio of sensors. Full frame happens to strike a fairly decent balance of batch retention versus dimensions. That's why current "medium format" sensors are just a hair larger than full frame compared to the previous status quo.
>>4454476
Correct. Let's also not forget about the K-P, the mirrorless camera before mirrorless cameras. But totally half-assed and crippled by retarded suits.

>>4430629
>>five 67s in that pic
He has even more, pic rel. That's the gear cabinet of a pro who relies majorly on the 67+105/2.4 look. These cameras are notoriously a pain in the ass to get repaired so such people just buy a ton of backups.