Not wishing to fan any flames here, but I think it largely depends on the print size you are working towards. I’ve been shooting for well over 50 years on film gear ranging from 35mm to 8x10, and now shoot m4/3. I have many prints in my house ranging in size up to 24x24". The m4/3 pretty much hold it’s own, dependent on the light levels when shot. I just replaced a 24"sq print from a Rollie 2002 6x6, Zeiss glass shot on a tripod with a cable release and printed with a $60K durst enlarger, with a 24"sq cropped handheld m/43 image. The m4/3 was printed at a commercial lab on Lamda gear, and it looked sharper and clearer then the optical print from the 90’s.
I think that too much attention is paid by photographers to the (theoretical) performance of their gear, and not enough to the aesthetics and content of their images. Just the rantings of an old man…
I’d also say that unless you shoot at least 200 images a week, and edit and process the best of them, you’re missing the opportunity to improve the most important equipment you own, which is your brain. Practice is very important.
I do have to add that I’ve been reprocessing and reprinting images in darktable that had originally been done in PS/LR, and the software has made a a big improvement in the final results.
Happy shooting!
The bigger question to the title