As recommended, I am taking a deep breath.
First of all, I notice that you let yourself out of an easy trap by not saying "any camera" but rather saying "any high-end camera". You are using a high-end Hasselblad, aren't you? You could probably do the same work with a 5D2, with a little more post-processing, but you aren't doing that. The original saw goes "any camera", not "any high-end camera".
While you can take great shots with any camera, you can not take the same shots with every camera. Try to imagine Ansel Adams Mt. McKinley shot with a Holga, and the impact is gone. His "Moonrise over Hernandez" shot was also quite uncharacteristic for him, in that it is not quite sharp, and was done in a furious race with time, so in that sense it is a bad example of Ansel Adams' work. His regular work was done with the very best equipment of the day, and a second-best lens for him would not have been good enough.
You can of course still talk about any other number of great photographers who did great work that wasn't that sharp, but I think you will find that the vast majority of landscape work is done with high-end equipment, and the vast majority of photographers in this forum are landscapers.
Furthermore, we have all seen large prints so sharp that it took our breath away. Or more realistically, we held our breath while we examined the amazing amount of detail in the print. This cannot be done with just any camera. You need something pretty unusual, unless you want to triple your time behind the computer, which none of us want to do (we need as much time as possible to argue on forums like this!
).
So there is definitely a place for discussions and considerations of high-end equipment, and equipment which gets us a little further is worthy of our considerations.
There is of course also a certain amount of fetichism going on here. I don't think that is wrong, and I think that there is probably no one here who doesn't fall prey to it to some extent, possibly except you. You seem to have a puritanical streak, as witnessed not only here but also on LL, where you argued for pages against equipment being sexy
Maybe so for you, H-owner, but my Contax is sexy, period, and so is my M8!
Hands up, Cube owners, you too are guilty, as are Cambo owners, arTec owners, and so on.
There is a special blend of satisfaction and admiration that comes from handling high-precision equipment made from top-notch materials. Mechanical excellence is something to be admired, not disdained. There is pleasure in owning high-end, high-precision equipment, and the Leica S2 fits into this, hand-in-glove. If I could afford one with the ease of PeterA, I would put my name down tomorrow, but alas, I am just a poor programmer. The S2 may not be noticeably better than the competition, especially for the price, but it is certainly not going to be noticeably worse either, and I love the feel of Leica gear.
To be honest, I hear this "it is the photographer, not the camera" bit a little too often to just take it on the other cheek. Some types of photos require good equipment, even if not all do. Some even require the best.
