If you're construing my light reference to how much this gear costs as some kind of stupid whine that I can't afford it ... I've owned and used top of the line equipment for many many years. Linhof, Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Sinar, various others when I did work that required such equipment.
Bravo for you that you feel you can afford a million dollars worth of equipment. I don't know what your photographic endeavors are comprised of, but if you're spending that much money as part of a photographic business, I hope you've made 10-20 times the value back in your sales. Otherwise, it's a waste of money IMO ... business is after all business, profit is the name of the game. If you're a wealthy or dedicated hobbyist for whom putting this amount of money and energy into your work is your life's mission, to supersede other desires and wants, more power to you. I've been there too.
My comment was directed at the spirit of the article, which is that too many photographers are hooked on fancy equipment and there are limits to what equipment can do to better your work, there are limits to how good equipment can get. Once past a certain point, the equipment is one of the least important parts of producing compelling photographs. Most photographers are well to learn their craft better rather than spend a million dollars on fancy ne-plus-ultra equipment. The few for whom such expenditures are essential are indeed the few.
In the spirit of friendly and diplomatic discussion, I'd have to somewhat disagree with the above.
Depending on what photographic business you are in, and for how long, it is conceivable to spend copious amounts of money on gear ... given the price of pro gear, including lighting and all ancillary stuff involved with professional digital capture. Plus, the "business" of photography is often infected with personal desires that are not exactly conducive to a pure profit motivation ... Guy being the poster child for this concept :ROTFL: (and to be fair, I admit to it myself, since I don't need a lot of this stuff to do what I do, but I want it). So, it most certainly is not a waste of money if you enjoy it and it brings some personal pleasure while making a living. For example, I chose to get a Leica S2 kit in lieu of a new fancy car, and instead just put new brakes on my almost 7 year old Volvo SUV. It's just personal, not business
In addition, well run photographic businesses factor in the cost. For all my "growth years" in MFD, I charged a digital capture fee for each job (as did all the photographers I hired when working as an Art Director). Factored in over a two year cycle, and including the tax write offs, in effect, I never personally paid for any of my professional equipment ... the clients did. Now that I am semi-retired, it is a different story and I am more aware of the cost to me personally, which hasn't made me a lot more prudent, just a lot more aware
I'd also offer a counter point to the notion that
"... after a certain point the equipment is one of the least important parts of producing compelling photographs." This is a variation on the well worn chestnut that
"it is the person behind the camera, not the camera." ... which no one in their right mind would disagree with. However, if you look at it from the perspective of someone who has mastered their craft and is branching out into new areas or different applications of their talents ... sometimes better gear can make a difference and can be conducive to growth, if for no other reason than it's exciting to master a new piece of more demanding gear, and make it do what you creatively envision.
Will it improve the end product? Again, that depends on the creative intent and skill of the user. There are more aspects to larger capture like 40, 60 or 80 meg MFD than just for large prints. I personally see a difference even with prints up to 17" X 22" ... if others do not, that is not my concern ... my only concern is what I see since it is my work, not theirs.
BTW, I disagree with the article regarding prints no matter how well it can be documented logically or mathematically. In most every case, prints look better than their screen version ... and prints from my larger format cameras look better than those from the smaller format cameras ... speaking strictly about the aesthetics of the print itself, not the content, which is the part that the person behind the camera is solely in charge of contributing.
-Marc