Are you obsessed with the technology only?

I don't think anyone would argue that certain gear isn't important to certain types of photography - your moon shots are not going to be able to be reproduced by my GRiii.

But reading what the OP wrote, it sounds like has the gear he needs and he just keeps buying more. And that's not going to provide a solution to his issue.

Btw, I'm actually in agreement with a few things you wrote:

I pretty much never go out with the specific intention of shooting. It is always part of something else I'm doing.

Also, most work I see posted means nothing me. TBC, I'm not saying it's not well done. In fact a good portion of it is - the insects and moon photos were excellent, but neither of those subject is anything I would care to shoot or spend time looking for in an exhibit.

Of course the primary consequence of this, is that many times when I find an image I truly think is great, and I show it to someone, they almost always go, "huh?"

Statements like gear doesn’t matter are usually not intended as absolutes. Rather, they’re an expression of an approach to making photographs that puts story (or color, or composition) before gear. An approach that you reject.

As incredulous as it is to some, I am comfortable traveling, even to once-in-a-lifetime destinations, with one camera and one (prime) lens. I do have an ILC (or five, but only one in regular use) for dedicated shoots — mostly sports and wildlife specific outings. I’m not anti-gear, but my day-to-day approach is to spend no time worrying about pictures I can’t make. Instead, I focus on making the best images that I can with the gear available to me in the here and now. If there’s a pre-visualized shot I must have, I’ll assemble the kit I need to make it. That’s an exception state for me. My overall approach is do more with less.

In astro work, gear matters more than in many other photographic endeavors. A big telescope is going to make better moon portraits than most consumer cameras. And for some astro images, you need something like the Hubble or Webb telescopes to get the best results.

Done:

dprevived.com/t/can-photography-be-art/2969/post/29555/

This, for me.

I have always had a great fascination with old 1930 to 1950 linen postcards from the Chicago-based Teich & Co. A few years ago I picked up a cheap digital camera from Polaroid. Cheap CMOS sensor, cheap sensor, cheap electronics. I started messing with it and pushing its limits and touching up the photos in post. I found that I could get similar looking images (maybe because it's similar to the original Teich process). That got me into the tech of that type of camera and today I have about 11 of them. My goal wasn't to necessarily imitate those postcards but go in that direction and then add my own "style".

My photos consists of half of this type of photography and the other subjects I discover on my hikes. But other than the digital trashcam tech I'm really not into tech at all.

It took me 15 years to decide on a new camera to replace my old point-and-shoot camera from 2004. Gear is something I have thought about a lot, because it does matter. Even now I only have 3 lenses, the third one after I realized that I need a bright prime for street photography at night, and it took me months to decide which one. Not thinking about why gear matters for their photos is what leads people into recklessly buying gear for the sake of buying gear and wasting more money.

What leads me to buy new equipment is missing a shot because of the gear. If I miss a shot because of me, that's one thing. But missing a shot because I don't have the right focal length, the right aperture, or some other scrap of technology makes me go get that scrap of technology so I don't miss it again.

It doesn't though.

Name the genre of photography. I'll name the cheap DSLR gear that can get it done by any competent photographer.

Stratospheric aircraft photography.
Deep sky astro photography.
High resolution planetary photography.

I appreciate this.

‘Horses for courses”. After careful consideration, buying the gear that you must have to do the work that you want to do. Nothing wrong with that. If that means 3 great lenses and a camera body that fits your style, so much the better.

If I was trying to convince someone that they didn't need an expensive car to go to work, you'd claim your workplace was the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and that you were actually trying to win it.

I partake in each of those activities.

This was taken from 27 miles away, as an example. Whether you like it or not is not the point. The point is, I wanted the picture and I like the picture. And since I'm the client, that's all that matters.

This is a 15 second exposure of a lunar eclipse taken with a 2000mm f/7 on full-frame.

If the OP did too, obviously my recommendations would be different.

Extragalactic astrophotography.

Or photos of god.

That's exactly the point - gear does matter. For some types of photography, a simple camera with a modest "normal" (or near wide angle or near telephoto) lens will work. For others, it will not. It's a poor craftsman who uses the wrong tool for the job.

Not clear there's a technical solution for that.

His issue is GAS for the "latest and greatest". Not which class of tool is required for the job.