Imagine if you hand it to a renowned cinematographer who films something incredibly artistically.
The person composing the shot and choosing what is "fixed in a tangible medium of expression" owns the copyright.
The owner of the camera doesn't automatically own copyright.
Yes, that is correct. Copyright resides with the person who provides the creative expression in taking the photograph, not in the subject or person who provides the equipment.
This most often comes up in the context of portrait photography/family photos. People expect that they can automatically make copies of the pictures of themselves that they paid someone else to take, but unless the contract is specifically written and signed by the photographer that the work is a "work for hire" and specifies that the copyright is owned by some other person, the copyright remains with the photographer.
Meanwhile in the real world I somehow doubt that this has ever come up as a legal issue.