What I am lacking is the ability to create compelling photography but that is a process independent of technology.
I can go on and on and on about how I learned photography with just a 55mm f/1.8 and a 135mm f/3.5 prime lens. I can go on and on and on about how the 55mm taught me to work within the limitations of the focal length, i.e. DoF and FoV. I can go on and on and on about how the 55mm taught me about angles and moments. I can go on and on and on ... but I won't. (Chorus: "Too late!")
I always challenge people, who want to really learn photography, to pick one prime lens and shoot straight to JPEG for three months. Everything, one prime lens in JPEG. Do it!
I so totally disagree.
I think he said that so that you are limited to just you and the camera. Zero Post-processing. If you can take amazing pictures, then that makes you a photographer. Post-processing makes you an editor, and although thats what it takes to be photographer nowadays i.e. be both photographer & editor... It wasn't like that back in the day. And you have to agree... Seldomly, do we all take good pictures anymore, they take half-assed pictures then throw it in lightroom to correct it, then crop it so they frame it better and lastly do a bunch of touch ups to make it clean and/or artsy.
No man. No no no.
Photography to me, in todays world means:
Knowing limits of the sensor/files and also how to enhance that. Without knowledge of proper benefits of RAW, the photographer will not be able handle exposures etc in low/extreme light situations.
Being very well versed with lenses and knowing which will work best for the story telling is a must.
And how about people who want to shoot wildlife? They MUST have proper telephoto... Landscape guys would need a proper wide... Ya?
Of course composition, lighting, and learning to see are fundamentals. Which I believe was the point being made but to disregard lenses and post is a very simplistic and limited approach.