I think "Fine" is to distinguish it from "Applied" arts when it comes to field of study or work. That's one explanation.
Fine Art is Fine Art, if you say it is, there really is no more to it than that. I mean, if I take a photo, call it "Fine Art", can anyone say it isn't?
The gear you are using is fine, if you're happy with it. All you need is a camera you like to use. I like my Leica M3, but that's gear-lust, it won't take any better photos than a $50 Pentax ME.
As for finding your photographic voice, I've no idea. Just try to take photos you want to hang on your wall is probably a good place to start.
I do dream of moving upto medium and large format "if it fits my style" one day. My 35mm is a learning tool.
What makes fine art photography "fine art" ? Well fine art is like ugliness, it's in the eye of the beholder. And frankly I have never seen any photography that I would consider fine art.
It means you are selling the final product for its own sake, visually, in contrast to commercial use.
Whether it's worth anything or not is a different subject. Give a Stradivarius violin to someone who's
tone-deaf and it will sound abominable, or even to someone who hasn't practiced a long time. But
most of the time calling something fine art is either wishful thinking or sheer BS. If you've really got
the DNA to be an artist, it will just come out in time. Don't worry about it - just learn to shoot and
print pictures and see where it leads you. Don't waste time with any wannabee mentality or fluff-
headed pigeonhole terminology. And anyone who judges another person's work according to a mere website probably doesn't know how to print anyway. That's for geeks.
Don't worry about how your work is defined. Just make the best images you can, edit very critically, and keep repeating the process. Acknowledgment will, or will not, come with time.