While they were juggling, I was shooting.
Less is more."
There's nothing wrong with a minimalist approach, but the above comparison is bullshit.
I've been photographing and traveling for 2 decades. If in recent years you still find people with a bag full of lenses, overwhelmingly this is to cover a giant focal range. Thus, when they switch a lens, this is to cover a dramatically different focal length. A wide angle for a landscape, a telezoom for a distant bird. Maybe even macro.
The point being, they're able to make shots that you're simply unable to make at all with your fixed 50mm lens no matter your creativity. Which is a choice, but it most certainly is not "more".
The minimalism claimed here is snobbery instead. You go against gear heads yet crave a Leica. The ultimate snob camera system. You claim speed is important ("I kept shooting") and then admire a camera that is slow by design. You claim weight is important, yet don't use your smartphone. It's one contradiction after the other.
To make the stereotype complete, I'll fill in the blanks. You're principally against auto-focus as it ruins the art. You make prints from your own photos and frame them with a white border 5 inches thick, to magnify the "minimalism".
Guests will think your intentionally blurry grainy B&W photo of unclear subject or meaning is from Ikea, luckily an explanation will follow about the laborious process to achieve this minimalism, whilst in the background the teenage son types into his AI prompt:
"Beautiful landscape with trees but actually sharp and not noisy, not in style of dad, without borders, full rich color, more is more"