Yes, and the same is true with MF and LF lenses, to more u go up, the more optical limits apply.
MF lenses are generally falling apart a bit above 100 lp/mm, just as much as generic B&W or color film can hold, currently.
With some RF lenses for 35mm you can easily hit 300lp/mm on film and with good enlarger and skills, you can have it on paper without much loss.
How can you get 300lp/mm
on film, using 100 ISO film?! Even TMX or Neopan Acros...
As for the resolution, back on the days where the Robert Monaghan Medium Format forum was online, they did tests with 35mm and medium format lenses (and using film) and found that most good MF lenses had as high a resolution as their 35mm equivalent. Thus my claim that it is a myth.
Both 35mm and MF lenses can reliably put 80 lp/mm on film. But the >4x area you get with a MF negative means you would need a 35mm lens and film that are to be able to put 160 lp/mm under the same conditions (same contrast ratio, same film). That's why in the end "there is no subsitute for negative area".
Even on a 8x10" enlargement, done by a very good printer and, say, FP4 film, the 35mm print will look nice and tack sharp, but a print made from a 6x7 negative will look three-dimensional, lifelike.
MF and LF are pocketable only if you are an elephant and then cost per shot goes up.
A medium format folder camera fits in your pocket. And, if it has been correctly aligned by a technician, it will give results that will beat most 35mm cameras. Been there, done that.
(...) Some MF/LF shooters bash 35mm and Leica, mostly because by default they are lousy printers.
If you think that a Leica camera with a Leitz lens will give you significantly higher quality results than a top-of-the-line Canon or Nikon camera with a top-of-the-line lens of the same focal length, then you are deluding yourself. I wonder if you are aware that Leica SLRs from about 1975 onwards were actually modified Minoltas... Or that some Leitz lenses for the Leica R system were actually made and/or designed by Minolta*
In any case, if you really want to purchase cameras and lenses from the highest quality 35mm manufacturer, it is was not Leitz but Zeiss-Ikon -- the Contarex SLR cameras and their lenses. Erwin Puts, Leica specialist, will agree. Camera technicians that have worked on both systems would agree as well.
But still, it is puzzling to see how some 35mm shooters obsess themselves with lens quality, while in Medium Format even a simple 4-element, 3-group lens can give tack sharp results that will be superior to what you can get with 35mm gear.
I went to Medium Format and never looked back.
That said, my Nikon F3 is here by my side and will be used today. 35mm has many advantages, but image quality is not really one of them.