The question of "what camera was used" may relate far more to technically impressive shots that you can get sometimes.
When you see a picture in a nature magazine of a kingfisher bird emerging from the water with its catch in its claws, you ask the question "how did they capture that?", which is always a "what gear was necessary?" question.
I often find that with a lot of photography that you see on display, the vast majority of it is either studio portraiture or outdoor available light portraiture.
There was an outdoor photo exhibit in a park I went to the other week. Almost all of the portraits were posed or so fabricated, that it felt artificial.
There were a handful of candids which were neat to look at, but ultimately, what pissed me off the most were these false colour photos of poppy plants and flowers. Oh look, it's an aqua poppy on a burgundy background. Haha, it's pop art... in a photography installation???
I also saw some introduction to abject art a few weeks back. The example given was a photograph (on what looks like Kodak Porta) of some uncooked chicken and a doll without clothes.
Hmm... yes... art.
My photography mostly consists of (allegedly boring) landscapes, macro shots of plants and insects, cat photos (lmao), bird photos and the odd boat or ship. I sometimes also take architecture photos which I honestly love the look of most, but idk how many people think that stuff looks cool.