Originally posted by Nicolas06 .....
In the end the gear is far less important than the rest: subject lighting, composition. As such why bother with big/heavy/expensive? Make no sense as an amateur. As a pro, sure.
You are right that owning the best and most expensive gear provides no guarantee of getting good photos.
And yet having the best subject lighting and composition provides no guarantee of getting good photos, either.
It really takes both the right photographic ideas and the right photographic equipment to create great images.
Obviously each person must decide what sort of pictures they want to make to determine what sort of gear they need to have (or they may decide to limit their photography to the gear that they have or can afford). Perhaps pros do more of the former and amateurs do more of the latter but the outcome is the same -- gear is just as important as vision because both are required to make and take the photograph.
An amateur such as myself might well want to take pictures that lighter or cheaper gear cannot easily produce. I want to take photographs outdoors without regard for weather conditions (which rules out Sony). I want to easily and quickly take photographs in low light with no flash (which rules out bulky tripods with Canon and Nikon). I want wide angle, good DoF control, and high DR, which pushes me to prefer FF to APS-C. Finally, I want a camera that offers a breadth of control of exposure, metering, AF, etc. which pretty much takes me to the K-1.
When I look at all the choices, the K-1 is more robust, better in low light, and much more functional than any other camera with the added bonus that it costs less than the competing (but inferior!) options.