So what

it's all about social science. like with cars or cloths. if you appear with a d3, that makes you "more serious" than using a d40. wearing a scarf like an artist makes you look like an artist but if you really are one? using a m-leica makes you serious, because the camera shows (to the like-minded) that you don't need electronics (or even a lightmeter, which I think is nonsense) "i just need a good lens". so why do people not use bessas or zorkis and buy leica lenses with it? people buy hasselblads and not kievs because they are more steady, prisewise and technical. if you earn money with what you are doing you can't use a camera with a crappy lens or a dodgy shutter. others can show to what group they appear.
for me it's fine as long as i feel happy. i really enjoy it when a slightly faster lens allows me to take a photograph in low light. technic geeking... exaggerated it's like pc-case-modeling.
you never just take photographs, it's a passion that you want obtain acceptance with. you would never just shot a pictures for your self never show them to others. on the other side, it's the easiest tool (esp. with photoshop) to create a "piece of art". everybody has to learn and especially "reel" photographers like to polarize and separate themselfs from the noobs. well they have to to make a living out of it. more and more digital-eos-kids do the jobs that 10 years ago were reserved for (mostly) well trained photographers (like in stock photography). amateurs displace the pros more and more mostly because it's all so "easy".
helmut newton often used a olympus point and shoot "the picture is already in my head, i just need to press the button". so what - in the end he is also just a human but he knew what he was doing.
as metatheory... is photography art - what is art? yaay !