In a sense I'm glad that the 7D2 isn't coming out until next year. This way I'll get a good full summer of shooting with my six month old rebel. Once the 7D2 does come out it'll actually feel like an upgrade instead of just seeming like the Rebel was a mistake.
Sorry to beat the dead horse again, but there definitely are situations where equipment is absolutely necessary over talent.
If you want to get pictures of crystal structures in metal, the Nifty Fifty just won't cut it. No matter how talented you are, you'll need an electron scanning microscope. I know that's an extreme example, but it also applies to Macro in general. You cannot begin until you have the right equipment.
Telephoto is similar, some subjects just do not let you get close. Now, maybe there's a little more room for talent (sneakiness) to make up for focal length, but the principle is the same. Better lenses, better cameras, better pictures.
Wildlife and Macro are two situations where you will take every bit of detail your camera can possibly spit out. You'll wring it and squeeze it for all it's worth.
For most stuff I'm sure that what we have now is amazing, but if someone says that improving IQ makes their pictures better, if that aspect of a picture is something they enjoy, can you actually disagree with that? Basically you have to come to the point of invalidating someone's personal opinion in order to say that an improvement in equipment doesn't make better pictures.
