>>4406542He's technically correct, but with digital medium format with a sensor that old, the amount of light collected and the photon well capacity makes it pretty much the same as full frame. Maybe the exact same lens on full frame would be much softer, but it's not exactly stellar on MF as it is.
If you photograph a gradient and a line set as reference targets on high and low resolution cameras, of close enough quality, the high resolution camera will still produce visibly smoother tones and finer resolution even at a tiny size like 3000x2000 (not even filling a a typical laptop screen, 3840x2160). You will also see fewer aliasing related artefacts with the high resolution camera's 3k*2k. On real subjects this gives a subtle "coming to life" effect.
If you have a small well camera (ie: g9ii) and a deep well camera (ie: z6ii) you will get better color differentiation out of the deep well camera because the per-pixel SNR is lower (larger sample size collected) and demosaicing fucks up less. Same principle behind high res cameras like the Z7II losing color information at high ISOs/crazy shadow pushes while the Z6II retains more accurately vibrant colors and isn't as prone to green/magenta blotching post-NR.
But the cameras MUST be technologically close enough, with a big tech gap a larger sensor camera can have worse colors and softer detail from more noise and worse optics. Some hasselblad models can actually be outperformed by a crappy sony A7RII, except in not having a green tint.
The correct decision for our talentless furry here is to flip his dated MFDB gear for a $7000 profit and invest in something that might actually help his photos get better like a camera that contemporary software still supports, more film paper and chemicals to practice with, better darkroom dust management, a groomer for his perpetually shedding dog-husband, and a nanny to watch his farm harem while he goes out to take photos of things other than ambulatory dinner.
