Yes, I do agree with the article and most of the forum posts, however, looking back at my amature history I made a few observations. I started with rol fim in 6x6 russian cameras that were used at highschool for training purposes. Some of my best portraits were shot with these mere pinhole cameras (at the age of 14!)
Then I 'upgraded' to the canon AE1 of my dad. It took a while but using its only lens a 50mm 1.8 MF I created some astonishing pictures on HEMA film (the dutch equivalent of wallmart but then smaller, Actually it was cheap konica b/w film inside the box, but that I found out later) One of those pictures still hangs framed in my living room.
Then I got a, in my position, affordable Nikon F801 with some nice zooms and a flash. Suddenly I had all the gear I could dream/afford but soon i found my pictures lacked quality. not techical but at the artistic level. the shots became just good recordings....So I lost interest in photography for about 10 years.
Only three years AFTER the purchase of a Nikon Coolpix 995 i regained my enthusiasm about photography and the artistic quality of photography that grabbed me 20 years before returned.
Several 1000s of shots later I bought a nikon D50 (nothing top notch, but the only thing I can afford). I am using my old lenses (and a new Sigma 10-20 I won at a contest, using a mere $10 Vivitar MF lens) but I use it with its limitations and a different mindset.
It is this mindset that makes the difference I think. Would a better camera make me a better photographer? I guess not. Would the images be of higher quality, maybe a little. Would I care.....not at all.
What matters is passion, time and concentration.
So does gear matter: yes, if it s your work. yes if your goal is to reach highest quality, No if it's your hobby to create ,sometimes artistic or just mere pleasant, images.
that said, I too have a wish list: A D300, a 85 1.8, a 70-200 /2.8 VR, a 17-55 maybe, so I quess I'm not that different after all..