>>2684514At least you're now no longer stupidly claiming that the 645 body somehow creates worse image quality than a 67, but you're still being a fucking retard.
>sub-medium-formatYou're being hilariously stupid here
>autofocusingoh no! a feature that if I don't like can be turned off
>no lensesHas all of the 645 and 67 lenses with no problem so...
>goes through batteriesYeah, I suppose it does.
Look, I wasn't going to state this outright, but especially with the "sub medium format" bit, it's pretty clear that you don't realize that the 645*N* (not D or Z) is a film camera that shoots 120 or 220 film. The IQ is the exact same as on a 67, those are solidly medium format size (which the digital version is slightly smaller than, but otherwise not at all deserving of your faggotry).
Eh, whatever, you're a hateful, worthless shitbag, so I don't know why I bother.
