Is it the Camera OR the things that you can capture with it?

Artists today have painting knives of flexible stainless steel, brushes and pigments that artists of earlier eras never dreamed of, materials that sculptors could only dream about, musical instruments that blend science and art.... but what do current artist achieve that surpasses DaVinci or Botticelli or Shakespeare or Beethoven??? Sorry, cameras are great tools, but it is what you do with them that counts, day or night!

Thats very simply put but its more towards the emotional side than based on facts.. We are talking about photography.. and discussing if the picture matters more or if the apparatus used to capture it.. There are different cases.. and all hold true.. Like in the case of a night shot.. you might see something beautiful but just cant capture it through your pocket camera.. while in the other case.. perfect shot but your just not there with your camera bag.. so the one with the pocket camera might just capture it.. So what more important now? No Im not asking if its between the pocket camera or a big one...

Wrong on all counts! The examples you have chosen are all clearly subject to the skill of the photographer more than to the equipment in use. However, to acknowledge the obvious, there are instances where the camera is apparently more important than the photographer: fixed speed cameras and red-light cameras; monitor cameras in shopping centres and tunnels. Yet even here, if the photographer does not choose well where to place the camera, select the appropriate focal length lens, determine the best angle of view etc. then the pictures will not serve their intended purpose. You mention jewelery and product photography~ you seem to believe that highly detailed photos are all that is required, but you would be surprised how many of these fail to display the product to best advantage, despite having an adequalte camera for the task. In reality, the intervention of the photographer is paramount, which is why professional photographers are so well paid for this work; it would be a lot cheaper to give a good camera to the clerk, but that just doesn't work. The best camera can - and does - produce inaccurate detalis, colour castes, distortions in perspective etc. It is part of the photographer's task to determine how the finished shot should look and ensure that the camera is set up properly to do this. Whatever each cameras' strengths and weaknesses, the photographer must understand and compensate for, or capitalise upon. A "pocket camera" (whatever that is), a DSLR, a 35mm analogue camera, a medium format digital back, or a half-plate rail camera, will have a range of potential for detali, clarity, magnification etc. But put any of those cameras in the hand of a competent and a less competent photographer, and you will see greater differences than between any 2 photos taken by the same person with different cameras... especially if the subject offers little obvious scope for creatividity, like an eclipse. Several years ago I ran a "photo challenge" which involved professional photographers handing over their regular cameras to a group of amateurs, and engaging in a shoot-off with them. While the amateurs were experienced photographers and had instruction in the pro gear, the pros were limited to using single-use cameras with fixed-focus lenses and no exposure meters. An independent panel judging the pictures blind rated the pros pictures above the club photographers in every case!

So would it be right in saying that you got into photography only because the technology used in making the camera has enticed you..??

but what about priceless moments that cannot be captured with any regular camera?