Nice photos! What camera did you use?
A famous photographer was invited to dinner party at the city apartment of a woman known as being something 
of a gourmet cook. As he entered the house, the hostess gushed over him and his work, exclaiming “You must have some very fine camera equipment to produce such fine pictures.”
After the party started to wind down, the photographer made the proper thank you to the hostess for the evening, saying “that was a wonderful meal. You must have some very fine pots and pans to produce some fine dinner like that.”
When people look at my pictures, they often ask me what camera I use, sometimes commenting on the rich colors, or sharpness. I don’t want to be rude, but you shouldn’t expect that your pictures will look like mine, just because you buy a camera like mine.
For what its worth, I’m using a Canon 20D DSLR that I purchased in 2005. A mid-range SLR that is getting a bit long in the tooth, it fills up a heavy little backpack when I include 3-4 somewhat expensive lenses, Canon’s high-end electronic flash and a bit of other gear.
My camera is always set to capture images in RAW. This is a a camera-specific format that captures all of the sensor info, which bears some explanation. Virtually all digital cameras output JPG or ‘jay peg’ either exclusively or optionally. This is a compressed format that contains a lot fewer data than your camera’s sensor collected at the time of exposure. When you choose to use camera-generated JPGs, you are allowing your camera to make a number of aesthetically-relevant decisions about the appearance of your image, including color balance, exposure, contrast, and sharpening. When you shoot in RAW, you retain as much data as possible, so that it can be effectively applied when consciously making decisions on exposure, color, contrast, and sharpening after-the-fact in your digital darkroom. This takes more time, but gives you much, much, more flexibility, and most serious photographers do it. You can spend a lot of time on a single picture.; hours, and even days. Press photographers often shoot RAW and JPG simultaneously, so they’ve got something they can immediately upload, but also have a ‘digital negative’ that they can use later for an enhanced version.
It should also be obvious that taking the photo in the first place requires the application of knowledge and experience, in addition to the making of aesthetic judgments on subject, timing, field of view, focal length, aperture, shutter speed, ISO sensitivity, and lighting.
All of that said, the bigger your camera, the more likely you are to get better pictures. No camera can make aesthetic decisions on your behalf, and I’ve seen plenty of lackluster photos taken on high-end camera gear, but the better the camera, the more likely that it will get the exposure correct, freeze motion, be in focus, and be free of distortion. Although its effect can be somewhat ameliorated by several hundred dollars worth of software, lens distortion degrades the quality of pictures taken with less expensive gear, and avoiding it is one of the reasons why my normal lens is inconveniently heavy, and costs more than an entry level DSLR & lens combined.
Buying a Stradivarius won’t turn you into a world class violinist, but if you have some talent to see and capture interesting images, a cheap camera will hold you back. In any craft, the more experienced you become, the better able you are to take advantage of sophisticated tools. A $500 wood plane won’t turn an apprentice into a cabinet maker, but a $50 plane would often prevent a master woodworker from reaching the full potential of their art. You should purchase something commensurate with your skill level. Today’s entry level DSLRs are pretty darn good, and very reasonably priced. Instead of buying a mid-level camera with the maker’s cheapest 18-55mm zoom, spend less on the camera and buy a better lens. Or consider getting a bridge camera, which is similar in layout to a DSLR, but is smaller, and avoids the need for changing lenses.