>>3831902>Don't be surprised when the first 645 sensors become available if a company decides to market them as *actual* and "full frame" medium format and calling their competitors "crop".Hasselblad's H6D-100C already does that (well, close enough. 645 is actually more like 56x41.5mm, so 53x40 is still a little smaller, but the difference isn't really enough to matter. Like how Sony's "full frame" sensors are actually 35.6x23.8mm)
>>3831953>"Medium format" [...], became synonymous with 120 rollfilm almost a century ago.This isn't true. There has literally never been a time when 120 was synonymous with medium format. It was been *strongly associated* with medium format for a long time, but never once in history synonymous.
E.g., Kodak tried to discontinue 120 in favor of 620 starting in the 30s, and 220 was still in production as recently as 2018. If you consider 127 to be medium format (which many do, including the ISO committee who codified the packaging standards of the extant-at-the-time medium formats into ISO 732), that's also still produced today.
So, when 120 first came out, there were other medium format films. Through most of its life, there were other medium format films that were still pretty popular. By the time it became the last-man-standing in the medium format roll film space, digital medium format had become a thing, so it *still* wasn't synonymous with medium format.
And even if you go by your "medium format is frame sizes that can go on 120" definition of medium format, I can name at least one camera off the top of my head--still currently in production!--that shoots 4x4 on 120, so 645 isn't the smallest medium format size.
You're a film snob, so you're biased against digital, but "Bigger than 35mm; smaller than 4x5" is a perfectly valid definition of medium format that's been used for decades, long before digital medium format was a thing. It's a very commonly-accepted definition. 44x33mm sensors meet that definition.
