I almost didn't post, but I do find this interesting enough. Nigel Danson did a comparison between a Nikon APS-C and FF against the Hasselblad. 21 MP vs 48 MP vs 100 MP. He printed out at various sizes looking for differences.

Toward the end, he dwelled on resolution. The spoiler is....he really didn't find much of a difference, especially between the FF (48 MP) and MF (100 MP). But, the 21 MP APS-C held it's own, even at the largest print size, he labeled it "splitting hairs".

While he focused on resolution more, he did make comments and kept coming back to the colors and tonality of the Hassy. He kept saying he thinks he can get there in post with the Nikon, but he obviously put a lot of effort into making the Nikon Z8 comparable and he still preferred the image out of the Hasselblad. I would argue that getting the tones and colors you want quickly has substantial value.

Not to start a resolution war...but a data point for those that are interested. I still think the biggest benefit to more resolution is ability to crop. But, as you increase sensor size, you do increase tonality and tonal transitions.

Also, regarding differences, his scenes may not have been the most challenging. Last spring, I did ~4 min exposures of the night sky with my M6 II and R5....there was so much more noise with the APS-C M6II compared to the R5. So, yeah, there are differences.

All that said, I did like seeing the comparison to a pretty inexpensive APS-C kit vs the expensive Hasselblad printed large. It really emphasizes the point that the most important element to a good image is a located few inches behind the camera.