There are many debates in photography that people adhere to with a fanaticism often only seen in religion or politics. These fall into a few camps:
- Full frame vs. crop sensor
- Nikon vs. Canon vs. Sony
- DSLR vs. Mirrorless
and for post-processing:
- Mac vs. PC
- Lightroom vs. Photoshop, OnOne, Luminar, etc.
These arguments are stupid. I don't see carpenters arguing over which hammer is better. I don't see housekeepers arguing about Hoover vs. Dyson.
I've used full frame cameras and crop sensors. I've used L-lenses and kit lenses. I've edited photos in Lightroom and OnOne on both a Mac and a PC. The each have idiosyncracies that you may cause you prefer one over the other, but it's just a preference not an absolute.
Choosing a camera system or a computer system hinges on a variety of factors, and for me it's price. If money were no object, I would shoot a Phase One or Hasselblad medium format and edit in Capture one running on a Mac Pro. That is dictated by what I like to shoot, landscapes.
Since I live in the real world and money is a factor, I use a 6-year old crop sensor Canon 7D, a 3rd party Tokina lens, and I do most of my editing on Late 2011 15-inch MacBook Pro.
The number one thing that matters is that you are making the best use of the gear that you have. A new camera system, a new version of Photoshop or Lightroom, or a new lens won't replace hundreds or thousands of hours of practice.
Shoot every day. Shoot in harsh light, soft light, and low light, and master doing it within the limitations of your gear. Then and only then, should you look to new gear to solve your problems.