> Me: "Talents aside, [...]
> You: "It doesn't work like this. [...] talented amateurs [...]
Uhm, okay.
Well, anyway, my point is pretty valid. If photography is not as much dependent on skills from your perspective (I wasn't talking about weddings and landscapes anyway) take something else. It really applies to everything.
Maybe music is a better fit? As someone that even actively plays piano I am still 100% confident that someone like Beethoven would run a better show on a $40 Casio keyboard than I would on a Yamaha C5.
I can see how he totally would. On the other hand, given a choice, he would likely prefer a better instrument.
The point is that a "consumer" camera in the hands of a talented photographer can easily produce better images than the "best camera in existence" in the hands of a lousy photographer.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like this.
Photography, as a low threshold occupation has tons of professional hacks who are bad with any equipment. At the same time there are countless amateurs who are top talent.
And it's not just a recent trend. Aside from photojournalism, formal portraiture and weddings, photography was always dominated and advanced by talented amateurs. There's no such thing as "professional landscape photographer" for example, even if some of them are able to make a modest living off their works after years of effort. Ansel Adams is a great example.
Also, no professional photographer would use a toy camera for anything other than a gag/vanity/show-off project. They infallibly use reliable, quality equipment day in day out.