Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
There are very few true dogs in camera land. 99% of the
cameras work better than 99% of the photographers using them.
BTW this is total nonsense and you should know it. For the vast
majority of photo their camera is a bit limiting factor on how good
their photos look. If you are one of those people how is happy going
out and finding what you think is an interesting looking staircase and
photographing it to make it look artistic then sure any crap camera
will work. But most people have the subject they want to photograph in
mind when they set out to get a photo, whether it be sport, landscape
or photos of people.

Take a look at a bunch of photos form someone who was using a cheap
camera and much of what you are going to see is ugly, and it is not all
if any the fault of the person taking the photo. One of the big
advantages that a good camera gives you is being able to shoot using
available light and avoiding the really bad photos one gets when using
the on camera flash.

The test of a good camera is not can you get a good photo from it, the
test of a good camera is what range of conditions can you get a good
photo with it.

Give an average photographer a 5D and have them shoot a bunch of photos
and then give that same photographer a point and shot film camera
loaded with ISO 400 print film using a lens that does not go faster
then f/5.6 and let them take another set of photos, many photos from
the second set will look like crap.

Maybe the photos from the 5D will not hang on the walls of a museum,
but how many photographer are shooting for their photos to hand on a
museum wall? But that is not the point, the same photographer using a
better camera will get better photos.

Scott