Which is more important - the image or the means by which it has been captured ?
For me it has to be the image.
But, like most of us, I still avidly read the photo press and study the tests of equipment that I just instinctively know won't make my pictures 'better'.
Well, actually I've stopped that now. Got bored with looking at adverts for stuff I don't really need and can't afford anyway.
I guess that if I was still a working full time pro photographer I would be specialising ( and that's always good advice for beginners ). But, as you've probably noticed, I'll turn my lens to anything that interests me and provides either form or colour for thought.
Although I still have a shelf of rather lovely manual film cameras ( Nikon and Olympus systems ) and lenses, and a couple of Nikon DSLR bodies ( the most modern being a D7000 ), my preferred weapons are now from the Fujichrome X range.
Small and relatively light even with fitted grips and lenses, the XE series ( I have the X-E1 and X-E2 ) are very close to Leica in design, whilst my X-T10 is closer to a traditional mini DSLR . All models have electronic viewfinders - which are a major design step from the ones you may remember from 10 years ago.
Fuji lenses are, like the camera bodies, constructed to a standard beyond their price bracket both optically and physically.
And no, they haven't sent me a large cheque yet ( or a free camera ).
I shoot in Jpeg format ( Fuji do this so well ) and try not to get bogged down with Photoshop tinkering. I feel that too often people succumb to the urge to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and then call themselves an artist rather than a technician.