It's amazing how often one hears the adage, with lots of variants, to the effect that the mere possession of the latest technological developments in cameras does not make one a better photographer, does not facilitate the taking of more interesting photos, more meaningful photos, more esthetically pleasing photos, photos with greater 'artistic' merit and so on.
I would suggest that anyone who knows anything about photography, knows this to be broadly true. The only people who might be fooled into equating the sophistication of the equipment with the talent of the photographer are likely to be the non-photographic general public.
On many occasions in crowded or touristy places, with my D60 and telephoto zoom dangling around my neck, I've been approached by complete strangers curious as to what magazine I might be working for. Sometimes I'm confused with a local photographic celebrity whose images, it almost seems, are on every postcard and calendar. Lately, the conversation tends to focus on -"Is that the camera that costs as much as a car?" - a reference to the 1Ds.
The facts is, whilst I'm very much aware that having a D60 in my hands does not make me a more artisitically sensitive and insightful person, I sure enjoy the activity of taking photos more. And that's what counts for me as an amateur.
But are the photos any 'better'? Undoubtedly! Which is better? An artistic masterpiece with all the defects that film and scanner are heir to, or the same masterpiece with grainless sky, clean skin tones and the general 'luminosity' that are a hallmark of the D30, D60 and 1Ds etc?