I think he said that so that you are limited to just you and the camera. Zero Post-processing. If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree... Seldomly, do we all take good pictures anymore, we all take half-assed pictures then throw it in lightroom to correct it, then crop it so they frame it better and lastly do a bunch of touch ups to make it clean and/or artsy.
Back in the day, there was this random guy, Ansel Adams. For some reason, people tend to label this editor as a photographer. Some even have the nerve to term him one of the fathers of photography. Can you believe that?
Sella, your 'challenge' is plainly short-sighted. In keeping with the spirit of it, perhaps it would be more reasonable to still take RAWs, but processing them to the 'camera default'. Still pointless, but at least you don't deny yourself the possibility of going back to the picture later en re-edit it to your heart's content.
The guys that think that everything must be done in camera and everything else is not really a photo must surely stick to a disposable Kodak camera where you press the button, we do the rest.
If you are taking the time looking for an interesting subject, framing, composing, choosing precisely when to press the button, etc, why would you let your camera's CPU take control at a critical part in the process and decide what curves to apply, what levels of saturation, intensity of NR, shadow/highlight clipping, etc?
Oh and just to be on topic, full frame. Never would want to go back. Of course the caveats are there if you need the 'extra range' for sports (hint: you never do) But the first time you look through the viewfinder you will be sold