I am the one that started these....seemingly never ending ...threads as a rebuttal to MR's rebuttal. I will have little else to say on the matter , as it seems it will just not get through to most....Anyway, the conversation is boring.
I'll sum up my P.O.V.
I had a look at pics and links by members that supported the view that the camera matters. They were mostly mediocre, unoriginal and..well...stillborn. I suppose that they WISH for the day that they CAN buy something that will make their art better (zzzzz...keep dreaming).
You appear to have comprehension problems as well. I've stated numerous times that there are many situations where the choice between 2 cameras makes very little difference. You've supplied some examples of that. Great. There are other situations where the camera matters quite a bit. Try shooting concerts in available darkness with a Kodak DC-4800, or eagles in flight with your Voigtlander with the 12mm lens. Or ski jumping with an 8x10 view camera. Here's another example of a situation where the camera mattered:
I shot this image handheld at ISO 1600. I was visiting a Weinnachtmarkt (Christmas Market) at Burg Lichtenburg, a castle near Kusel, Germany. It was well after dark, and I was walking around photographing things by the light of the floodlights that lit portions of the grounds. There was a full moon, and it was partly cloudy. It was sufficiently dark that even at ISO 1600 and the lens wide open at f/2.8, I could only get a 1/15 shutter speed. When I saw the girl standing looking at the moon, I decided to try to get some images. She was only there for a few seconds; there was no time to try to set up a tripod. And even with the lens wide open and the highest available ISO setting, the shutter speed was barely hand-holdable. But because the camera had a fast lens and high ISO capability, and autofocus that works well even in such dim lighting, I was able to take advantage of the opportunity and shoot a few frames before she left. If I had used a typical digicam, it would have still been hunting for focus when the girl turned to leave, and with the ISO limitations of most such cameras, the image would probably have been either significantly obscured by noise out of focus, or unacceptably motion blurred. Even a lesser DSLR would have made getting the shot significantly more difficult.
Better gear isn't going to improve the artistic vision of a photographer, but better gear will allow a photographer to achieve his or her artistic vision without imposing its limitations on the process to as great of a degree. Better gear can also significantly increase the odds of getting a shot that is only available for a moment or two and cannot be repeated (there are lots of these at a wedding, for example). When you have a paying client's expectations riding on capturing such shots consistently, and the prospect of getting repeat business from that client as well, the true issues of this debate snap into focus. An amateur shooting for fun can afford to spend extra time setting up a tripod because his camera can't manage a fast enough shutter speed to shot handheld, and if he misses a shot, it's not that big of a deal. An amateur doesn't have to worry about the client wanting to make a poster out of the shot, and wanting enough resolution and low enough noise so that the texture of the clothing on the model or in the surface of the product isn't obscured. Professionals can't afford the luxury of wasting unnecessary time during a shoot, especially when models, hairstylists, makeup artists, etc. are involved. And better gear can mean spending far less time post-processing after the shoot dealing with chromatic aberrations, color correction, noise reduction, and other technical shortcomings of the camera and lens. Better gear can make the difference between meeting the client's expectations or a deadline, or not. Better gear can make the difference between getting repeat business or not. Better gear can make the difference between paying bills or not. And if that doesn't matter, then what does?
