Originally posted by Class A I wouldn't be so sure. If the scene is demanding then one should see differences in the noise performance (definitely if we take a high-ISO shot). Also differences in sharpness and colour balance should be discernible.
Sure, if I could trade in more "capable hands" for a lesser camera body, I'd do it.
In other words, yes, the photographer is more important but for any given photographer, better equipment will yield better images / more opportunities.
Also, there is a time to take pictures and a time to think about equipment. There is no need to justify one self spending the later.
Pity is, there are far too many people who blame the equipment for their own shortcomings. The K20, Kx or the K-7 are very capable cameras in the right hands when actually SHOOTING...and in shooting I mean, real world shots, scenes and composed photographs, not some crappy comparison shots of some thrown together sample fodder at 15 different iso settings that mean very little other than to serve one's own fetish of noise comparisons.
If you cant make great photos with either of these three models, you need to go on to stamp collecting, toy trains, etc. It doesn't matter how sharp, clear, noise free, etc etc etc each body is in your dreams, you still cant make God appear in the photo when you spend all your time comparing minutiae instead of getting out and actually COMPOSING. How many great photographers are/were known from their portfolio of test shots?
There are those who can, and there are those who cant and usually blame the equipment.
Jason