There are some really great photographers in this group. And I've been here long enough to see the images they were making with cameras with 2009 technology and they are now using cameras that are state of the art.
The photos are THE SAME.
Now pixel peepers may debate some arcane difference, maybe there is better "edge to edge sharpness", but the photos (as one would view a print from a normal distance) are the same.
I'm sure many will disagree. I would just suggest to look at some old gear threads. Go look at some old GR threads from 10 years ago. You'll see names you recognize and I'd wager that you'll also see of their "photographic eye". Now there may be some "improvement", because the photographer has had 10 more years of experience. But I'm fairly certain that if you gave that photographer that old tool again, they would be creating the same photos that they are creating with their newer, more modern tools.
There's a lot of truth in that, but on the other hand, I see major changes in my own images - they may not be apparent to others, but it's very much a reality for me. Even more to the point: What I shoot and how I shoot very much depends on the gear I'm carrying.
Case in point: I said which camera I'd carry today, and I did. However, I also took three other cameras with me - as I usually carry several. Of course, I can't show you any images from the XA yet (though developing that film is something that's on my list, it's a *long* list ...). But in the end, not the E-M5 III provided today's "Daily May" image, but the Leica M8 - and I couldn't have taken that very same image with the Olympus because I used a shallower DoF than an f/4 lens on a
camera could ever provide. Furthermore, I took a couple of my favourite images from today's outing with the measly old Nikon P50, a 2007 P&S - simply because it needs a different mindset (perfection isn't an option). As it happened, I didn't see much that profited from the better IQ and technical prowess of the E-M5 III, instead, I took some impromptu shots I happen to quite like the results of. So it goes. It also means that I actually *have* taken those images - I might not have, had I only carried the E-M5 III ("That's not worth it ..."). Gear helped. So, maybe it's not a necessity, but it certainly can facilitate or catalise things ... As with someone who intentionally limits her or his options ("Single in" challenges ...).
In the end, I'm in favour of everything that makes me shoot more and enjoy the process more. And I love to explore photography. That's because I'm an amateur - someone who simply loves all things photography, though picture taking is most important to me personally. Exploring gear is part of that, so there's nothing wrong with it.
And to add just another thought: How much better could said image of Bert Hardy's have been, had he taken it with a better camera? We don't know. He wanted to make a point. But at the same time, he may have wilfully crippled his own potential irreversibly. It was his choice, so he was fully entitled to it. But mine would be different, and no less justified.
M.