Originally posted by justinr When I was doing wedding photography I was using a Bronica on manual everything. I'd pit the average sharpness of my AF 18-55 kit lens against that of the Bronica average any day. It's not that the Bronica lenses are poor it's just that manually metering and focusing in a gloomy church whilst trying to remain as inconspicuous as possible is quite a task. The fact that I came away with anything decent or sharp at all always used to amaze me.
Now the photographer in question may have been quite hopeless but are we saying that if she had a top end Pencanikon then all would have been well? Doesn't that simply reinforce the myth that an expensive camera is all you need to be a good photographer?
When I was doing wedding photography it was with a Pentax 6x7. It wouldn't surprise me if a kit lens is as sharp as some of my old 6x7 Takumars, but then, I also wasn't magnifying the images anywhere near as much with the 6x7 negative as I am with the junior sized DLSR image.
An 8x10 from the 6x7 is a 4x enlargement, the same size print from an APS-C camera is just over a 13x magnification.
I'd hope the lenses for the DSLR are better, they are being worked a lot harder to do the same job.
It would also help if you would read what you are responding to before you interject a red herring.
If you go back and read what you replied to, you will find that I said that a Canon Rebel wass a good enough camera body for shooting weddings, so I really don't know where you figure I was saying anything about having to have a top end "Pencanikon" (whatever the heck that is).