>>4250995>a metric that affects 1% of photos taken is more important than a metric which affects ALL photos takenLOL
>Because APSC already has far more sharpness than we actually use with a sharp lens.LMFAO I bet you're a m43 fan in disguise. There is a significant sharpness and detail difference just jumping from apsc to FF. picrel is the best apsc sensor available vs 645z. Unfortunately dpreview doesn't have the D model in their database, but the Z is the same size with a slight MP bump. That difference is on every photo, unlike DR which will only affect the most extreme sun-in-frame landscapes IF you don't know how to bracket, or extreme underexposure errors if you don't know how to expose or chimp.
>>costs more than both APSC and FF,OP never specified price. Looking at eBay I would personally go used FF (D810, 5DsR, A7Riii) for the lens selection, but could see someone going with the 645d if they wanted that mount, maybe to share lenses with a film body. apsc would not be in contention.
>You're literally just paying for a gimmick at that point that does not make your images look better,That's DR 99% of the time. Anyone making larger prints would be better off with a 645d than apsc.
>It's like the MFT of medium format except MFT actually has lenses to choose from.Called it: mft fan. Maybe Olympanon? Tell me how your shots are just as sharp as FF because "muh special Olympus glass."