While you can glimpse into my bag of Nikon 35mm and DX equipment with this image, I've always maintained that my only tools essential for taking pictures are these:

MY eyes, an alarm clock, a tripod, and A camera. Honestly, when you have the first three, almost any camera will do!

(I specifically put "almost" in there to avoid people pestering me with "so, should I just get a $10 disposable camera? Is that good enough?")

Ken Rockwell wrote a great article concerning "why your camera does not matter" and I reccomend you read it sometime.

After going through my own period of constantly wanting better gear and thinking that I couldn't possibly make decent art unless I had the better gear, I waxed "old school" and bought myself an FM2 on Ebay for $150. An FM2 is a (film) camera from the early 80's that has absolutely no automatic controls. Why'd I get it if I have over ten times that much money invested in DSLR equipment?

Shooting with a camera that demands an awareness of it's settings, combined with the fact that I can't see the results right away, actually HELPS me take more thoughtful images, and makes for fewer technical & aesthetic mistakes.

It's not that I couldn't get the same results with a high-performance digital camera. It's just that very often, all the automatic controls and instant feedback can make a photographer careless, prematurely satisfied. OR it can make a photographer overly critical of their results. In fact, sometimes a digital camera can appear to give too much feedback, driving the photographer to take one picture over and over again just to get the white balance right, for example. Not only can this cause one to miss better photographic opporunities, more importantly it WILL detract from the enjoyment of the location...

For these reasons, I ultimately cannot attribute any good photos to a particular piece of equipment I own, nor any of the terrible photos to equipment I don't have.

However I CAN attribute the progression of my style and vision to the older-than-I FM2, to some extent, because it helps me to be more aware as a photographer.

Likewise to my D70: even though the majority of my images are made with this camera, I would not be so foolish as to say "I couldn't have possibly taken this-or-that picture with a different camera." However I do appreciate a DSLR just as much as I appreciate a fully manual camera. You can read about this reason in my advice column, particularly HERE.

Thanks for reading, and happy shooting!
-Matt-

PS: This happens to be what my camera bag looked like back in 2005, set up for nature / adventure photography- One digital body, one film body, one super-wide prime, one mid-range zoom, one telephoto zoom, and one macro lens. (Along with many other essential tools, such as a circular polarizer, Velvia film, waterproof jacket, etc. etc.

However more oft. than not, I am shooting a weddding, in which case I grab a completely different (shoulder) bag. If you MUST ask, that bag currently contains a Nikon D300, D200, Nikon 17-55 2.8, Sigma 50-150 2.8, Nikon SB800(s), and maybe an f/1.4 lens if I'm feeling lucky! :-P