Seems this is the hot topic for the month. This is the third place I have come across that particular argument within a week or so.
Basically the question is what you compare to what. Are we comparing the impact between a pinhole camera and a 1D? Or are we comparing the 60D to the 7D? Don't tell me the first doesn't make a huge difference, whereas the second one might be completely irrelevant.
But you also have to define the 'skill' part. Are we talking about the artist whose purpose it is to create interesting and pleasing photographs, or are we talking about a hired photographer whose job it is to produce exactly what the client ordered
? A skilled artist with vision can take just about any camera there is and create wonderful pieces of art. But if you try to use that Mickey Mouse camera to shoot high speed sports action for a magazine you might be in for a rude awakening.
Skill and equipment both play a role. How much? That depends on what you want to do, simple as that.
Yet those first eight frames on the Mickey Mouse with it's plastic lens, flare, aberrations and bad exposures definitely had the most magic about them from the whole six days.
But that is the perfect example of how important equipment is. (And I do not mean that I bet the client took the pictures from the Hasselblad) The Mickey Mouse camera was the important equipment here. Had he pulled out a P&S (technically just as ridiculous as the MM) it would most likely not have worked. At best the models would have been confused. But the fact that he used that visually ridiculous camera put everybody in a good mood. Setting the stage for a good shoot and also producing some unique and great photos with the MM. But then of course it takes skill to realize this, and to work with it. Having the right equipment does not always equal having the most expensive equipment!