You pose a question to strikes to the heart of photography. It has both a technical and artistic elements. One can be artistically successful without having the latest gear. Let's face it, most of the images from the last century, created by highly successful practitioners, were made with equipment that would be considered totally obsolete in today's highly tech-centric culture. So much concentration is on the technology rather than the technique, yet while better gear might make a good photographer take better images, it will not make a bad photographer a good one.
For example: since the development of digital photography there has been an increasing fixation of creating images that are sharp, yet this was much less of an issue with earlier photography. In the following example, created by the recently discovered photographer Vivian Maier, one of her most lauded images is far from sharp, but many photographers and critics praise it for its artistic and cultural characteristics. 
The image is technically awful, both from his own challenging situation, and from a disastrous accident in the film developing. Yet many elements that are technically dubious actually add to the emotion of the moment - it expresses stress, dynamism and drama. If you have ever seen the TV series Pacific, Capa's photo reminds me of the charcoal imagery in the opening credits. Combat is not neat and tidy. What does come through is that it is very well composed, especially considering Capa was under intense fire on Utah Beach during the invasion of Europe in June 1944!
People take images for a host of different reasons, and those demand different equipment, approaches and considerations to assess what is a success or not within each context.
Another example is the issue of pixel peeping - a fixation amongst modern photographers. When one realizes that most people will look at a complete image from a comfortable distance, it becomes clear that the vast majority of people who examine closely an image will be photographers.
This detailed examination actually came from painting and the rise of Impressionism in the mid-19th Century.
See: Impressionism Movement Overview | TheArtStory
At that time, painting (like many societal aspects) was going through a technological and cultural revolution. On the technical side, while the vast majority of images were created in a studio away from the likely subject location, it was also culturally bound by a strict set of hierarchies for appreciation. At the top were images of history or classical mythology, then portraiture, below that landscape and at the bottom (almost unaccepted) were genre images - those of contemporary views of the real world and common people.
This all changed with a series of inventions. Painters could suddenly travel widely through the development of public transport via the burgeoning train systems, and they did so to paint en plein air the views of the country and cities, and the actions of normal people in genre paining. To do so they could suddenly exchange large, unwieldly studio easels for portable ones. While hitherto paint was ground from its raw minerals and stored in pigs' bladders, the invention of the paint tube in 1841 made it possible to have immediate access to consistent quality and cheaper paint without mess or waste.
Finally, the availability of bristly brushes made from pigs' hair, instead of the super smooth and expensive sable brushes, along with new brush flat shapes, meant that Impressionists could paint quickly and layer paint onto the canvases to give it texture. That was revolutionary, and was a major reason why other painters would want to minutely examine the techniques that produced shapes, and even new concepts of colour, represented by the development of Pointillism - which in paint echoes to some degree what was to become the principle of how colour is captured and presented in digital sensors. (See; Pointillism - Wikipedia)
In looking at modern images, we end up concentrating less the artistic talent of the human and more the technical performance of the camera. Still, when one looks at a lot of published commentary, especially about gear, it is often concentrated on resolution - which is very good for camera and lens manufacturers.
So, if one is going to engage in photography as a pastime, (either as an enthusiast or eventually a professional) I think one has to decide in what context one is going to gauge success. If you have not done so, I would recommend engaging with the work of Sean Tucker, an excellent and talented photographer who explores many of the philosophical aspects of photography. If you have not discovered him, I recommend following his channel.
I have been shooting from the early 1980's, which makes me a living fossil, perhaps. Still, I learned the principles of photography - understanding exposure, how cameras measure it and how we control the settings of the camera through the holy trinity of Shutter Speed, Aperture and ISO. Those are the technical bases that underpin everything, understand those and you should be able to pick up any camera that has those controls and take a decently-exposed picture. The other part is understanding the art of photography: and for that one turns to look at and learn from the great artists who have practised composition in the paintings and photographs. I still spend a lot of time looking at and learning from those amazing talents whose works have stood the test of time.
Another thing is to understand that photography differs from painting in that painting is an additive art - by which I mean that the artist starts off with a blank canvas and adds the elements to make their image how and where they like. Modern x-ray examination has shown that many famous painters from Rembrandt, Caravaggio and Van Gogh painted over elements as they fine-tuned their concept.
Photography is a subtractive art. We usually start off with a view that will contain elements we want to make our subject, but will often contain others that are distractive. So, one has to understand what will attract our attention and use those to concentrate our attention. That is where the art of composition comes in. For example, use Depth of Field to focus on the things were we want to concentrate the viewer's attention and try to dissolve those distracting ones. Back in Vivian Maier's image she used brightness to do so, and we immediately move to the figure of the elegantly-dressed woman, but are aware of where she is going by the dimmer light on the car. We accept the camera movement because it tells us the story.
Another example of that is demonstrated by Sean Tucker's video:
I shot with film for over twenty years, doing a variety of work as a freelancer. I switched to digital around the turn of the century and have continued with that ever since. While I do embrace the latest tech, I keep a stable of older cameras and shoot with them to demonstrate to my students and reassure myself that one can still take acceptable images with old gear. Technique over technology.
I shoot with the Canon D30 (not 30D) release in 2000, a 3.3MP sensor and max ISO of 400. It can still take great photos that will publish fine on social media.
I still occasionally shoot with the Rebel Xti (400D) and 80D - just to enjoy the process. There is something liberating about the simplicity of these legacy cameras. I also shoot with the latest tech available when the occasion demands it, such as my preferred genre of animals.
So, one of the first decisions you need to ask is what kind of photographer do you want to be: genre, audience, level of commitment. You may change that over time, and that's normal, but you have to have a clear vision of success to direct your attentions.
In the end, excellent is achieved by putting in the hard yards - study the principles, examine the works of those who are successful, and take a lot of image that you will examine critically or ask for constructive criticism from those whom you respect.
Don't fall into the trap of chasing likes on social media - you will become the kind of photographer that others want you to be, yet in the end many of the most successful achieve that through seeking and pursuing their own vision and finding their own 'voice'.
