We spend allot of time here comparing equipment and extensively analyzing the pros and cons of bodies, lenses, etc.
However - many people say, that the real ingredient for producing special pictures - is the skill of the photographer. Many all time famous monumental photographs where taken black and white with "simple" equipment. The special part of those photos is often the content and meaning of the picture - much less the "sharpness" or other tech features.
How important is our equipment ? Would you agree that it more like 85% skill and 15% equipment ?
I think that really depends, as many have pointed out already. The technical aspects of photography are not really "hard" compared to other skills and art forms. Good equipment makes it both, easier and more flexible. Non of this has to do with composition, "having an eye" and the creative thought process. Yet good tools are always a plus. Using a screw driver to stir paint can not exactly be attributed to being creative if you know what I mean.
And for some things there are certain minimum criteria. I personally always liked playing with depth of field so fast and or long lenses and big sensors/film are a plus. In the film days this was relatively affordable. With digital today it's on average more expensive. My first digital camera, a point & shoot just couldn't do much of what I wanted it to do. So that was a clear technical component that was not sufficient. But for most of the other aspects it wouldn't really matter if I was using my 5DII, a Leica M9 or an entry-level Rebel kit and whatever is messed up or flat out boring is due to my own limitations and not the cameras'. In fact, I believe that some equipment challenges can help improve skills.