[SAI_Peregrinus]

I'm an amateur bird photographer. My camera + lens setup is far too big and heavy to carry around when not birding.

But it makes a huge difference in image quality compared to digiscoping with a smartphone (or even the same camera with an adapter). See these images[1] taken with a smartphone + telescope, camera + telescope, and camera + telephoto lens. The telescope has more reach, but substantially worse image quality and requires a tripod. The last shot handheld is the first day I got the lens, I've gotten much better with practice.

Even when I have my camera, I've got a 200-600mm lens on it for the vast majority of the time. My phone has a 14mm equivalent focal length, so if there's a pretty landscape I'm just going to use my phone. The widest lens for the camera I even own only goes out to 28mm, so even swapping lenses doesn't get me as wide an angle as my phone can get. As a bird photographer I have no intention of ever getting dedicated landscape lenses.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/VE4kYtI

[NovaS1X]

Birding is one of those rare use-cases though where gear is pretty essential. Astrophotography is another area where better gear often does lead to better pictures. That being said, it still doesn't make up for the skill of knowing your subjects, being patient, and spending all that time setting up the perfect shot; the gear just gets you in the front door. A bird shot in bad light at a bad angle with a phone is still a bird with bad lighting and a bad angle with a 200-600mm, just in higher resolution.

My point originally was that amateurs generally spend far too much time focusing on the best gear, when they should be focusing on their subject and skillset.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Agreed! Some things do just need a certain minimum level of gear to do decently, but no amount of fancy gear will make up for a lack of skill.