[GeoffWessex]

If you wanted to make a very large print then yes, Medium Format film is better than APS-C sized digital, and theoretically better than 'Full'Frame' digital (but I don't think you'd find much difference between FF digital and MF film). Add to that the expense of Medium Format film cameras, and the development and scanning of the film and editing, only the finest jobs would require it - even if professional studio/product photographers insist on them.

Then again, how big would the print be? If you're looking at an A4 sized print you'd be viewing from a few inches and seeing how good the resolution is........ but if it's poster sized you'd stand well back and get the same relative view. Then you'd need a magnifying glass to check it out. But large prints aren't really meant to be looked at from a few inches.

If you only mean a digital, on-screen version of your image, full frame digital is superb. Your 'barrier' to finer work is the resolution of the computer monitor.

So your line "for larger image sizes medium formt and large format film is better than digital".....

Strictly speaking, yes - there's a much higher resolution in MF and LF film (we're talking about 5cm x 4cm and bigger here) than in APS-C digital and, theoretically, higher than Full Frame digital.... just compare the sensor size differences... about half a square inch on the regular digital camera, up to 'enthusiast' level, About one square inch on Full-Frame (which means it's the same size as a 35mm frame); about 6 square inches on Medium Format film, and right up to amazing 240 square inches on some of the old wooden view cameras. A print from one of those is hugely impressive - and at 'contact print' size its sharpness, clarity and resolution would blow your socks off.