There is no false statement.
Okay! Let's examine this statement of yours,
"the photographer needs to know his gear specificity". The immediate question that follows from such an assertion is, "Why does the photographer need to know his gear specificity ?" I presume we're not talking here about basic procedures in the manual such as how to turn the camera on and off, and how to insert the batteries.
Now according to you, it doesn't make him a better photographer in any way. If this is also true, then one can't help wondering, "Why would anyone, whose goal is to become a better photographer, waste his time learning his gear specifications?" Surely there must be more important things to do.
Your answer to this appears to be,
"Knowing the specification of his gear mean knowing how to use it at the maximum, and knowing very well how to PP specifically behind."(I'm presuming that last part of your sentence means, "specifically, knowing how to post-process very well afterwards".)
Does knowing how to use the gear to its maximum, that is knowing how to use the gear to its full potential, not make one a better photographer? Are you really claiming that an understanding of how to get the most from one's equipment has nothing to do with being a better photographer? If so, perhaps we should define more clearly what constitutes being a 'better' photographer.
As regards post processing, surely that is another, separate, skill which has to be learned in addition to the purely photographic skills of selection of subject, lighting, and the taking of the shot. Apparently, Henri Cartier Bresson never did any post processing. He was a good photographer, wasn't he? I get the impression that most people using cameras rely upon the post processing built into their cameras. However, I don't.
All FF cameras since 2008 have enough DR for all major professional work (wedding, products, landscape...).
Well, I don't consider myself to be a professional photographer, so perhaps I'm not qualified to refute that statement. Also, I'm so modest that I would hesitate to claim that my standards must be higher than those required for major professional work.
However, I find such a comment very strange when you include categories such as landscape. I can understand that DR specifically may not be not a concern when taking photos of products in a studio, or in any situation where the photographer can create his own lighting and pre-arrange the composition.
I can also appreciate that portraits of people in general, such as those taken at a wedding, may not require the camera to have an exceptional DR. What's usually more important in those circumstances is SNR at 18% grey.
By contrast, the real dynamic range of many landscape scenes can be huge; far, far greater than the capabilities of the Nikon D800E, for example. We might think that 13 or 14 stops of DR in a camera is very impressive, and it is impressive compared with other, lesser cameras, but not when compared with the real scene. Those last 3 or 4 stops of DR from the D800E, say between the 10th and the 14th stop, will appear quite degraded compared with what the eye saw in the real scene.
The real, practical advantage of a camera with a DR rating of 14 EV, compared to one with a DR rating of say 11 EV, is that the 14 EV camera has a usable DR of maybe 10 or 11 EV, whereas the 11 EV camera, using the same standards of noise-free acceptability, may have a usable DR of only 7 or 8 EV.
I finished a weeding one half hour ago and I did it with the Fuji XT-1 only and some good lenses. The D700 and 800 stayed in the car and I KNOW that this little inexpensive camera did the job extremely well.
Can't comment on the performance of the Fuji XT-1. DXOmark haven't shown their test results yet. Also, I'm not sure a camera is a suitable tool for weeding purposes. I prefer to put on some rubber gloves and just pull the weeds out. (Sorry! Couldn't resist.

)
I think that photographers, if they focus enough, can output outstanding results out of "obsolete" cameras.
Are you implying that a similar degree of focus and dedication using a modern camera will produce results that are no more outstanding? Since you've already agreed that a photographer needs to know the specifications of his camera in order to be able to use it to its full potential, do you not think that a modern camera used to its full potential will produce, at least some of the time, even more outstanding results than obsolete equipment in the hands of the same photographer?
The camera is just a dead tool. The photographer's skills are the most important. It is why your numbers tell me nothing.
I'm afraid not, unless perhaps you believe in magic. I haven't yet come across any stories on the internet of any photographer being able to take a photograph with his skills alone, without a camera. I do believe that having a camera is the first essential, wouldn't you agree?

Also, I see a contradiction in your statement that the numbers tell you nothing. Didn't you previously state that the photographer needs to know the specifications of his camera? Perhaps you do not consider numbers such as '30dB SNR at ISO 3200' a specification. Such numbers seem quite specific to me.
I'll give you an example of how useful and meaningful the DXO numbers can be. Let's say I'm considering purchasing a Sony RX100 MkII. I'm a bit undecided because I've been disappointed in the past when using P&S cameras, because the noise, DR and high-ISO performance leave much to be desired. How will this RX100-II compare with some of the DSLRs I've used in the past? What can I expect?
The last Canon DSLR I bought was the 15mp 50D, with which I was reasonably pleased. How would the basic, fundamental, RAW image quality of the RX100 II compare with that of the Canon 50D with a roughly equivalent lens attached, such as the EF-S 17-55/F2.8? DXOMark is able to tell me. Checking their charts, I find the following information which I've been able to interpret from the numbers, because I'm such a skilled photographer.

(1) Color Sensitivity of the RX100 is noticeably better than that of the 50D at base ISO, but slightly worse, to an insignificant degree, at ISO 3200.
(2) Tonal Range of the RX100 at all ISOs is very slightly worse, but to an insignificant degree.
(3) SNR at 18% grey is also very marginally worse, but to an insignificant degree.
(4) Dynamic Range of the RX100 II is actually
significantly better than the that of the 50D at base ISO, by one whole stop. However, at ISO 3200 the DR of the RX100 is marginally worse by a less significant 1/3rd of a stop.
(5) The built-in zoom lens of the RX100 II gets a P-Mpix rating for sharpness of 6, whereas the 17-55/F2.8 on the 50D gets a slightly higher P-Mpix rating of 7. Distortion and chromatic aberration is also better in the Canon lens.
Conclusion. The images from the RX100 II, on balance, will be marginally worse, technically, than those from the Canon 50D used with EF-S 17-55/F2.8 lens (a lens I used to use with my 50D), but not to a significant degree and not as much as I expected. I've gone to the trouble of making this comparison because I'm considering getting the latest Mk3 version. However, I shall wait for the DXO tests of the RX100 Mk3 before I make a decision. The improvements in the Mk3 might result in basic image quality being at least the equal of the Canon 50D with 17-55/F2.8 lens, in all respects, and the wider aperture of F1.8-F2.8, of the Mk3, could result in lower noise as a result of sometimes being able to use a lower ISO than I would in the same circumstances with the 50D.
Now I have a check to bring to my bank
Ah! Now I understand your definition of a good photographer. The more money you earn, the better the photographer you are.
