If you go and do accomplished work with a rebel and g15,.....is the same with showing at work as a realtor in cheap suit and tennis shoes and pretending you are successful.
Danika Patrick in Cavalier,....Go race,....The car does not matter,...it's the driver.
"Cameras do not matter"is stupid,.....Lenses do not matter,.... is even worse.
Yes,.... a moron with a good camera can be outdone by a pro with an I phone but I do not see any of these IPhone praising super pros like Annie Leibovitz showing up on a job with an I phone because,..... CAMERA MATTERS.
If you do not have 1000$ to spend on a good camera but you have 500$ to spend on a G15,.....you are indeed accomplished in,... not being very bright.
Okay, there is so much comedy gold and contradiction here it's unreal.
"1000$ on a good camera."
I'm not knocking this in itself, because 1000$ (or even $1000) would buy you a good camera. It would buy you a rebel. It would buy you a 60D. At a push it might even buy you a 7D. Are these the good cameras you mean?
I have a 7D and I can vouch that it is a good camera. I'm also acutely aware that the sensor and processor is the same as in my T3i. And that lens for lens, setting for setting, sports and and nature aside, I'll get pretty much interchangable results. The 7D wins out for sports and nature, and viewfinder quality and handling.
90% of the time I am entirely happy to use the t3i.
I am with you up to a point on the lenses, but don't confuse cost with quality. One of my favourite best performing lenses is the relatively humble 100mm f2.0 USM. My Sigma 70mm is also pretty darned exceptional. I was underwhelmed with the 17-40 when I owned it, but that said I would use it in pretty rough conditions like the speedway track in the rain, without fear of failure. I prefered my old 200mm f2.8L to my current zoom, but I need the flexibility for video, I could have spent $1000's more on the f2.0, or $1000 more on the IS mk2 zoom, but I'm smart enough to know about the law of diminishing returns, and buy the kit I need, rather than buy the kit I need to make up for any lack of self-esteem or ability. Besides that $1000 would get my SQN a full service, or get me an extra m416, or let me get a Sachtler rather than Vinten.
It's all about spending money where it's important.
I don't work in real estate, I work in video production for Europes largest publisher. I get to wear sneakers and jeans to my work because I'm in the creative dept. I don't have an ego at all, quite the opposite I'm actually very modest, shy almost. Folk judge me on my work, some of it made on the humble T3i, some of it made on a PMW-350, whichever suits the task in hand. I don't need to wear a suit or a big watch for folk to take me seriously (although I do like my big watches, which shall I wear today, my Tag or my Omega, ach the Omega needs winding and setting, I'll just wear the Tag) and it's the same with the camera gear. I have storyboards pulled apart, I have location managers climbing the walls when I start asking about mains phasing, when I filmed with Rod Stewart recently he was very particular about the angle of my camera and the position and power of the light. But I can honestly say I've never had anybody challenge my choice of camera.
And Annie Leibovitz might not turn up with an iphone, but she'd probably be professional enough not to scoff at $1000 DSLR users from behind her Hasselblad DMF. And she would probably be quite interested in somebody with a G15, as a G10 was for a long time her choice of pocket camera.
But that's the bar your setting for comparison to your standards is it? Annie Leibovitz? Thats the level you're at I take it?
You have the touch of the littljohn or the clarkson about you, except they can put their incendary troll-like opinions into reasonable english.
And if your argument is really that you can't get a good image out of a Rebel, or that using a Rebel makes you stupid then I'm afraid you really are talking out of your backside.
You can usually tell stupid folk by their opinions, and you're doing a grand job.