What about an insinuation that drools with repetition? Does it perhaps make a cogent argument more cogent?
The gear doesn't matter, its just a matter of convenience.
Repeating your fallacious argument doesn't make it cogent.
Let me put it like this - RLPhoto has been clamoring up, down, and sideways for an EF 135mm f/1.8L IS for months (his recent poll, and IIRC, he even photoshopped a mockup of one). Why not just use a 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus or even an old manual focus FD 135mm f/3.5? Because...gear matters.
It would be more convenient to use slower shutter speeds at times but hey, I'm getting it done with my 135L. If I only had a FD 135mm F/3.5 I would use it and get results but hey, F/2 would be more convenient.
Give me a camera, and I'll get something out of it. It may not be as convenient but I will get my photo, It'd just be more In-convenient to do so.
Lol, I never photo-shopped that 135L F/1.8 IS USM but thanks for the compliment anyway.
Sorry, but its more than just convenient. At f/2, your maximum blur circle size is much larger than at f/3.5. That allows you to get a thinner depth of field and creamier out of focus background. You can, quite literally, do things with a 135 f/2 that you cannot do with a 135 f/3.5.
It is only "more convenient" from the standpoint of allowing more light in...but then again, it is still not "just" convenient. With an f/2 lens, you GET MORE LIGHT...which means your SNR is higher, which means you have less noise. And no, increasing ISO is not the same...there is a reason why exposure value (EV) is officially adjusted only by aperture or shutter speed, and not ISO. By increasing ISO, you are COMPENSATING for LESS LIGHT (lower EV), not getting a higher EV.
A lens with a wider aperture may be convenient, but it is not JUST convenient...it is more than convenient...it is BETTER. It offers the user more flexibility, more creative freedom, MORE.
The argument is not about "getting *something* out of a camera". Your missing the point. Anyone can get "something" out of "any" camera. A more skilled photographer can get something "better" out of "any" camera. The point that is being made is that with better tools comes more flexibility, greater capability, and improved quality. Put a better camera in the hands of the most skilled photographer on earth...and they will STILL make better photos than if they had a worse camera.
You can't just dismiss the value of a good tool, a better tool, a proper tool. You, my friend, are effectively saying that the only tool a person needs is a hammer!
WRONG!! You know how fundamentally invalid that argument is (or at least...I hope you do!!!)