99% of your images could be taken equally well with that old camera. Coming up with the 1% (or whatever) where it can't, and presenting that as definitive evidence to the contrary, is poor logic and argument.
The principal determinant in the quality of an image is user input, not gear.
In fact, they couldn't. Suggesting that you have knowledge about my image library and the conditions under which the images in it were taken is an untenable and meaningless argument.
It's true that user input is the main determinant in the image output. But you seem to be suggesting that user input is effectively the only
determinant, and that's simply not the case. Gear matters, and for certain genres of photography, it matters a lot. Examples of those genres include birds (particularly in flight) and low light action shooting...both of which represent a major portion of what I shoot. For example, I routinely need high ISO – close to 40% of my images are at higher than ISO 3200; I just had a quick look at the set of images I'm currently processing, and the entire set of several hundred images ranges from a low of ISO 2000 to high of ISO 25600, with the majority being in the ISO 4000 - ISO 12800 range. Are you suggesting those hundreds of images could have been taken equally well with the 7D?
If you want to claim that gear does not matter for 99% of what you
shoot, that's fine. For all I know, 100% of your images would just look just as good if taken with a 2.1 MP Hello Kitty camera:
...but that's certainly not the case for me.