with the very ubiquitous statement:
"It is not the camera that matters, but the photographer"
I only agree up to about 85%. In my own interpretation, the statement seem to be applicable more to the composition of a picture, and less to exposure, colours etc. For film SLRs, the statement is quite warranted, cos I guess most camera bodies will have accurate enough metering, and lenses are usually good enough (such that there is not too much of a difference in results produced by a consumer lens and a L lens for comparison sake). So eventually the photographer is the one who makes the picture stand out from the rest.
For digital cameras, the statement isn't totally true. With the wide range of digicams available now, we have the low-end webcam stuffs to the high-end SLRs. There are obviously big differences in the picture quality produced by these cameras. Granted that a good composition can make a picture stand out, but how about colours, noise, sharpness, CA, saturation, and many other more parameters? Undoubtedly, what makes a picture look good is more than composition. Aesthetic appeal of the picture counts too.
Also, the technical prowess of better cameras allow them to produce shots that are not/less possible with lower-end cameras. Try to get the Acer300 to take night shots, and you'll get less than satisfactory results.
In my opinion, while the above statement is a very appropriate one to encourage budding photographers to have more self-confidence and faith, it is not 100% valid in today's context, with the popularity of digital photography. But like I said, I still agree with it to 85%....
This is intended to be a healthy discussion, cos I really wish to hear the opinions of you guys regarding this. It has been on my mind for quite a while. Hope we can take this constructively! Thanks in advanced for those who reply.
Happy New Year!