The discussion here is proving to be quite informative to say the least.
Paul - you did make mention of something that had me thinking in your response - that being your last paragraph on being disappointed upon careful scrutiny - I myself know what you are saying here, but at what point does the average viewer, looking at a dive publication, going to say "Oh the photographer must not be a professional - I can clearly see they shot this image with a point & shoot".
It is true that the general public has become more sophisticated in their appreciation of imagery, but are we giving them more credit than what is due based upon our chosen profession? One could surmise that an image shot with a D70 isn't as professional as one shot with a D2X in a housing - all other aspects being equal.
It's a subjective debate based upon those who feel that if one can make a 16x20 print without noticable loss of image quality, that it will show itself in publication - typically where the image is being used at max 3 columns - when in reality, the moire' pattern induced by going to press itself hides many of those very artifacts that are apparent in a direct print process.
It's always the dream to have a cover shot for a trade publication, but the vast majority of images used in publication are running 1-2 columns wide. A 3MP p/s can handle that no problem.
Yes - I have been to the various digicam review sites and seen the difference in image quality when the image is take to maximum size in side by side comparisons - but we are talking about practical day to day submission work here, and those print sizes never make it to press anyways.
My first serious photojournalism mentor chastised me for not editing and cropping in the camera - I learned my lesson well from that proverbial spanking.
I have seen too many images from photographers who have all the right gear posting images that look like they were shot without regard to practicing that very principle. If you are using the extended capabilities of the camera to make up for poor technique, then you are still no better than someone using a point and shoot in a housing.
I have seen award winning photo's done by people who use very simple equipment - the conent itself is what made it - not the type of gear it was shot with.
I sometimes wonder if we as photographers delude ourselves into thinking that because we spent the thousands of dollars in gear that we need to justify that expense.
I myself have won numerous regional awards as a newspaper photographer on gear that was considered "consumer level" yet because of proper technique, produced images that were exceptional enough to warrent the awards (This was still in the days of film though)
There is always a need for high end gear - don't get me wrong, but I also think the lines are becoming more blurred as the technology improves in what seems almost a daily basis.
