This is an old argument that comes up over and over for artistic activities that require technical apparatus.
The fact is that there is a difference between features and quality. The quality of a digital rebel is quite up to the task of making great art. A working pro or experienced amateur might prefer features the Rebel doesn't have that they can use in support of their artistic purpose. But the main difference between the artist and the snapshooter is the presence of that artistic purpose. There are techniques I can't apply with my wife's digital Elph, but I can still compose the image effectively and push the button at the right time. Those two choices are much more important than how one uses the features of the camera.
Great photography has been done with a Holga. Great photography with good technical values has been done using lenses of much less capability than what we have available to us.
But that doesn't mean I'm giving up my good equipment.
I also play tuba. My tubas are excellent, and it took me many years to assemble a fleet so close to what I want to sound like when I play the tuba. Does that mean I'm any good? Not really. But even at my level, those tubas get me a bit closer to that sound in my head than I would be able to get on lesser instruments. Top pros can play beautifully even on sub-standard tubas. But they choose not to, and for a simple reason: They are too much work. It just takes too much effort to manage sound and pitch on a poor instrument. Also, the top pro will be looking for subtle capabilities at the margins of what others can even perceive.
I might buy a lens because of it's particular rendering, when someone else might not even notice the difference. Or, someone might use esoteric features in their 1Ds that I have no sensitivity to or interest in. If spending the money for a 1Ds means that the camera is less often standing between them and their artistic purposes, and if they can buy it without shucking their responsibilities in life, then it's probably worth it.
Good equipment won't make art, but it can either support or inhibit the photographer in that pursuit. Personally, I'd rather not have to think about equipment so I can concentrate on the subject.
(On the subject of lenses vs camera bodies, I think they are important, but it's more important that they provide a sweet spot where the photographer needs it than having any particular competence, red stripe, or price tag. The uses to which I put a medium zoom suggested that wide-open performance was important. That's the main reason I rejected the 75-300 USM III in favor of the 70-200/4L. The cheaper lens is reasonably competent at f/11. But the L lens is completely competent at f/4, and move the lens's sweet spot on top of my normal usage. It's not about how much you spend, but rather how well you spend, and how well you understand your needs and usage. The camera also has to provide a sweet spot that coincides with the photographers approach and purpose.)
Rick "who, to the question of Equipment or Photographer (or Lens or Camera), answers 'yes'" Denney
