Why bother buy a great digital camera if...?

... one can alter image very well in photoshop? Is it worth spending thousands on top class camera? I can understand lense investments and other accessories. But is my assumption true that one can alter image (using photoshop) from say Canon Rebel XT to make it look as beautiful as it would come out from say Canon 30D? If true then why buy 30D?

All this camera previews and comparison shots show differences but photoshop is powerful enough to make colors better, sharpen images, add motion blurs, reduce exposures, improve contrasts, etc etc....

so why not go hollywood way? Afterall the end results matter. Am I missing anything here?

Let's say you can choose between a Rolex watch and a Swatch. Which one do you take?
I bet it's the Rolex.
And I suppose most people would do the same choice
Why?
Both of them provide exactly the same service.

Why choose a 30D over a Rebel XT or a 5D over a 30D or even a 1D MkIIn over all the others? Maybe not ONLY because of additional features, efficiency or ease of use, but also because the higher end cameras are beautiful objects that are very desirable to posess. Same thing for the L series of lenses which many amateurs (including I) do not use at their full power.

It's all about pixels...the more pixels a camera allows the better your photos will be. No photoshop program can improve pixels and if you are really into photography or frequently take photos for personal use it's worth the investment.

Canon 30D has several advantages over Rebel XT.

1. It's shutter speed can that go up to 1/8000 sec. Helpful in brightly lit areas especially when you are shooting shallow depth of field

2. It has ISO speeds upto 3200. Meaning you can make excellent shots in very low light conditions.

3. It has better metering capabilities than Rebel (spot meter among others)

4. It uses prism in stead of mirror to reflect light to view finder. Supposedly better.

5. It can take more shots than Rebel per minute in burst mode. More speed, more memory.

6. It has 16-bit raw image capabability that Rebel does not have

8. Has a solid body casing over metal, vs plastic on Rebel

9. Has high quality shutter that can last 100,000 shots

10. You can engage depth of field preview, AE lock much better than Rebel.

11. There are many other features which some may not use at all

Canon 30D is definately superior

It's without a doubt worth it. You can get digital cameras now that have not only higher pixels which make the quality itself better, you can get image stabilization so that if you shake the tinest bit your photo won't be blurred which software cannot remove, a good flash range so that you won't have to lighten beyond a good quality and end up with grainy textures that print out and look obvious, you can get a action or sport mode so that the slightest flutter or movement won't appear appear as a blur - which software can NOT remove, you can get zoom features that bring images up closer before the photo is taken so that you won't have to crop and loose the good quality of the photo, you can get macro and super macro to take super close up detailed shots of flowers or butterflies or bumble bees or whatever - again without cropping and enlarging and loosing the quality that normal say 4x6 photo would give you. If you want to go even a step further, you can get a nicer one with manual modes that accommodate special lenses and get a great shot of bike races or car races or horse races or swimming competitions etc. Whatever the best is that your camera can shoot cannot ever be improved any more that "its best". The speed of a bike can't be improved beyond its limitations....so if you want more or better you have to get more to get better - a motorcycle. Or a V-4 can't be any faster or better that its best - so you can get a V-6 or V-8. These are just other comparisons to kinda give you an idea of what I'm talking about. No amount of software touchups or improvements will improve "its best at a given time". Hope this kinda helps you.

The image quality is the same for both cameras. If it were me, I'd still get the 30D though. Here's a few differences between the two models that I'd gladly pay $550 extra for:
* Bigger viewfinder
* Better build quality (metal vs. plastic).
* Better durability (rated for 100.000 shutter actuations vs. 50.000)
* Faster in continuous shooting (5 FPS vs. 3)
* Spot metering
It's a short list, but worth it. For me anyway.
I looked at the Canon 20D/ 30D for a while but ended up getting a Nikon D200 instead.