I fail to understand why the statement generates criticism. Settings mattered to him at the time but should have no bearing on what someone else does at another time. There is way too much talk about specific settings or specifications comparing cameras when every camera made in years could get desirable images that tell a compelling story. It it assumed one knows the basics of exposure triad, if not they won't be able to get what they wanted in the first place and only discover that a shot worked after seeing one they liked from a day of shooting.
Settings and camera spec mean very little to the story, and the drive to replace perfectly good cameras with each new model seems counter productive, causing people to advance slower, having to learn a whole new system. If someone is not getting shots with their D3400 that are intriguing to people changing to a D500 is not going to change the lack of artistic content.
Each one of those images he showed could have been shot in an infinite number of ways, and the only criteria that matters would be the impression on other people. A lot of people shooting the same scene would end up with a lot of different reactions from viewers. It is not art until perceived by others, and their impression determines whether it is desirable or not, communicative or not.
Shot with what you have, before spending money on a new body, invest in travel to good art museums or galleries. Notice your own reactions to works. That will teach you more about the art of storytelling than a new camera body. All this assumes you know a lot about the exposure Triad, if you have to ask settings, maybe you need to study a little more about exposure. Once you do know exposure you will be able to have more control of how the results conform to your intent when comfortable using manual exposure control.