22mm + 32mm + _____

MAC wrote:

and here, for me, the higher mpxl technology changes the old technology paradigm.

that is, the 32.5 mpxl's of the m6II with the 32 f1.4 (51.2 FOV) gives me that extra cropping power -- over 18, 20, 24 mpxl's sensors) to frame looser (which for me is most often desirable, then crop in post), thus, I don't reach as often for my 85 FOV on FF

I also like my 100L with 12 inches MFD better than my 85 - and they both have IS versus the 56 has no IS and is already 89.6 FOV

With both RP and M6II, I have more portrait FOV's with prime lenses on high mpxl

32 f1.4 (51.2 FOV on M6II with lots of cropping capability)

RF 85 F2 IS (85 FOV which sits at home often times because I have the cropping power of the 51.2 FOV on 32.5 mpxl

100L with 12 inches of MFD that is 100 FOV with 4 stop IS on my 26 mpxl RP or 160 FOV on my M6II with 32.5 mpxl cropping power (which often allows me to keep my 70-200L at home - I use to use 200 mm on 20 mpxl 6d, but now I have 160 FOV on 32.5 mpxl)

so for me, 51.2 FOV, 100 FOV, 160FOV with L quality in the portrait category

I'm not one to consider 35 a portrait prime category but have the 35 f2 IS, but more often use my RF 24-105 F4L for the 35 mm FOV

all this said, the 32.5 mpxl m6II (particularly for $540 used over the holidays) was in my opinion the best accessory for the 32 f1.4 portrait, L - like - lenses first - jacket pocket application

and imo - the m200 (jacket pocket with the 32) has been replaced by the iphone 13/14 for the small jeans pocket application

YMMV

You keep talking about this magical cropping power of the 32MP sensor as if it was a quantum leap above the older 24MP sensors.  The math simply does not support your repeated claims.

To get to an 85mm filed of view (FoV) from the EF-M 32mm f/1.4, you need to crop your M6 II all of the way down to 11.7MP using an image sensor area smaller than that of a 1" sensor compact camera.  Your images will roughly two stops noisier than if you had used the 56mm f/1.4 and your full frame equivalent depth of field is f/4.0.  The Sigma 56mm f/1.4 on the M6 II or the RF 24-105mm on the RP would both produce significantly better images.  For reference, the 24MP sensors would be cropped to 8.7MP under the same scenario.  If you want a minimum of 300 pixels per inch for prints, this level of cropping on the 24MP sensor limits you to 8X12 while the 32MP sensor gets you a slight increase to 9.3X14.

Even cropping the 100mm L macro has fairly significant impacts.  To get a 200mm equivalent FoV, you need to crop the M6 II down to 20MP on an area a bit smaller than micro 4/3

Sure, more megapixels are always welcome, but the suggestion that the 32MP sensor now allows for incredible levels of cropping that were never before possible with the older sensors is simply not true.  Yes, the M6 II sensor is better than the M200 sensor, but the difference is nowhere near as dramatic as you keep suggesting.  Cropping the 32mm f/1.4 lens is a terrible substitute for the 56mm f/1.4 lens.