I agree with the point that you should have gear that looks somewhat decent and professional. It falls under the principle of professional practice. It would look fairly retarded to bust out a DIY foam core soft box held together by duct tape and expect to make a good impression. But on the other hand, I don't think an entry level D-SLR should matter if it isn't inhibiting the photographer in any way. Like others have said, it looks professional still, and it kicks the crap out of DSLRs made 15 years ago that "pros" were using.
People who are in the know, realize that gear is solely meant to get the job done and bring some type of vision to fruition. It stops there. But I sense that a lot of people are really into their gear and place more importance on it than it actually holds in reality. An observation from a photo professor I had at art school who had taught an adult hobbyist class: it was the men in the class that were preoccupied purchasing a ton of gear, but it was the women who were more into learning how to take pictures. I'll expand by saying that men are always fighting for hierarchical position or status with one another, and trying to impress women--and owning a bunch of fancy photography equipment and being able to rattle off the technical feats that it can do and showing off its bells and whistles is a way to achieve that. This is human nature. People do this with all sorts of things. But the odd thing to me about this dynamic in reference to photography, is that photography is meant to produce something, it is a means to an end; it's not a gold chain. It is far more easier and comfortable for many to learn the tech specs of their lenses or feel good about the fact that their camera can shoot x number of frames a second, but it is far more difficult to consistently produce compelling and engaging photos. Or to get beyond the 'snap shot' aesthetic. I think the people who are sitting on some expensive gear, but are not the best image makers, could be the ones insisting on the status of the camera being of supreme importance, perhaps out of defensiveness or out of justification for having a potential $2500 paper weight.
Personally, I'm more interested in the photographer's portfolio. Some of the coolest photos I've seen are Deguerrotypes taken over 100 years ago with primitive cameras. If they don't have anything like the aforementioned foam core soft box to embarrass me, I really don't care what brand of anything they are using.
I've just started working as a freelance photographer. I was in a position where I didn't have a ton of start up capital, but I wanted to start shooting. I distributed my money rather evenly over camera, lenses, grip gear, studio pieces, computer/software. But 95% of the images on my site now were taken with a Rebel. I find it is good enough for what I have been doing. When I need a better body and lens, I'll rent one for now.
