I think gear is hugely over-emphasised in the role of making compelling images. In fact I believe it's counter-productive in many instances, leading to paralysis by analysis, or more often an unrealistic sense that equipment alone will somehow promote a visceral response to the image. My argument is while the response to, say, a 10 x 8 chrome is real, the materials of its construction will not offer any lasting emotional draw beyond that of spectacle. Which is why photography as description and photography as creation shouldn't be conflated. In other words a sharp large format colour saturated transparency is certainly capable of being used creatively, but it won't be its technical attributes that confer lasting merit or memorability.
This morning's radio contained a segment with Antarctic penguins being counted from a space satellite. The resolution of the camera allows for accuracy to a couple of centimetres. For tracking penguins, or rogue cells in the body, or deep space optical phenomena, resolution is a really useful tool, but it's still difficult to know what it offers creatively, beyond spectacle. Personally, I own cameras from 5 x 4" to plastic lens P&S, and digital full frame, APS-C and M43. There have been long periods when I've shot almost exclusively on 6 x 9 colour negative, vintage folding cameras, and black and white film in an SLR. In hindsight, I could have chosen any one of those media, exclusively, and produced good work. This is not a reflection on my ability, nor a lack of regard for what each medium brings to the aesthetic mix, but a sense that what makes a photograph memorable isn't contained in the amount of silver or dye, or the optical formula of a lens.
.
