well, to be technically exact, you also could strap a mast and some sails to the roof of your car and drive your way around without even needing to stop at any petrol station.
the significance of wedding photography and the results achievable changed pretty much with the introduction of Photoshop, autofocus, wireless lighting and such.
i thought it was clear that i attached those 4-5 pics of that wedding to make a point on sharpness and "crappy pictures taken with a 3 year old CCD". if you will be kind enough to watch the whole youtube video pasted earlier (i also thought it would be quite clear why i provided only a youtube link), you will notice some action shots, some tricky lighting schemes, some limited amounts of ambient light, some limited amounts of ambient light with the interdiction to use flash, and some other things that are well over the possibilities of your average bridge camera or whatever. a wedding isn't just 20 formal shots in the park, you surely realised that in your 400 paid weddings.
now that i think about it you are right, us professional photographers (i can barely call myself professional..) get too much hung up on our equipment, i think i will email some of these guys:
1 2 3 and others i know and ask them why do they need all of those 1DMK III, D2X, 5D, D3's. why don't they just pick up some old F2 or a MX with a 50 f/2 lens, a bunch of TriX's and a Sunpack 383 and get the job done ? they are artists right, they could shoot a wedding with pretty much anything.
also, i think it is a little strange you should ask me and other canikonians to leave the discution since the thread title sais "Pentax vs.
Canon vs.
Nikon AF"
was this supposed to be another one of those feel-good threads where someone would just point out in the end that you don't actually really need AF at all? you say you are not commited to any brand, but your post dissagrees with you.