The issue of quality is extremely complex. It is not as simple as adding more pixels.

I worked in a pro lab for decades. In the early days of digital, we had 1.3 MP, 3.2 MP, 5.3 MP, then 6 MP image files. Once we hit 5.3 MP (Nikon D1x), professionals were selling prints of head-and-shoulders portraits at sizes from 8x10 through 40x60. At normal viewing distances (1X to 1.5X the print diagonal dimension), they look fine.

Yes, more MP make things easier, facilitating cropping and enlargement and improving resolution at larger sizes, but the story of quality includes a lot of other factors:

Dynamic range
Noise
Headroom
Sensor site size
Sensor format
Sensor technology
In-camera image processing system design and constraints
Image capture bit depth
File type saved (raw or JPEG)
Camera menu settings referenced during processing
Post production manipulation
Exposure
Shutter speed
Lens design
Lens aperture
Diffraction limiting aperture for the sensor in use
Stabilization on/off
Tripod used/not used
Light level and applied lighting ratio
Contrast range of the scene

It goes on and on. What you learn with experience is that most advanced cameras are better than most advanced photographers! We strive to stretch the cameras' limits by stretching ours.

The big brown truck isn't coming to my house. I have no money for the sigma contemporary 150-600 lens . Though Ive been saving, its still a long ways away.
So Im thinking how about a UHH gofundme page. everyone here could send me a buck and I would have enough for the new lens in no time.
The extra money thats left over could then be sent to a member that contributed ( by random selection ) and they can apply it to their new lens.
IN the mean time here is a picture for you to look at.
I was at Conowingo Dam to shoot eagles. they were too far away ( because I didnt have that 150-600 lens) so I got a few pics of this guy.