I tend to think yes. You make an image with the camera at hand.
Absolutely, but how much are the motives I choose influence by the camera, its functionality and limitations? If you ask the same question if the lenses are discussed, it obviously matters a lot, but with cameras?
Here's an example:
When I started shooting motor sports, I used a Fuji S3, and I know that the motives I chose were influenced heavily by the limitations of that camera. Later, I changed to a D80, then to a D300, D2Xs, D700 and finally to a D810. With the latter two, there were few limitations, and my photos reflect that. The photos are not necessarilly better, but they are different. The downside was that I got all these bursts of 36MP images of which none was in focus. With the S3, since I only shot RAW, I had a buffer size of 3 frames, and the buffer took more than 40 seconds to flush. Because of those limitations, I always prepared better, and the hit rate was high.
With film and with old digital camera that were limited in so many ways, I always worked harder and I always gave the framing and exposure more thought. I suspect that, because of this more elaborate way of taking photos, I might have seen motives that I wouldn't have seen with the current crop of advanced cameras.
There's no way of proving this of course, and as you point out, we shoot with what we have, but the more I think about it, the less I'm inclined to upgrade my camera bodies, although I often give the opposite impression :ROTFL: