The connection between good photographs and good cameras certainly is a faint one.
I think Annie Leibovitz once said that "If you are asking what's the camera, you are asking the wrong question"
Like
@Wombat has said, if the goal is to make print-out, we really do not need that many pixels. Even in the days when I did wet dark room, I rarely printed larger than 20x24. For a digital 20x24 print nowadays, even at 180 ppi, i think the required resolution is still below 24mp.
If my memory serves well, I think for a 20x24 print, I really needed at least 645 format without seeing too many grains (ISO 400). 4x5 film will be much better for that size.
Now, a 35mm format digital certainly is more than enough for 20x24. I think even a good 1-inch 20MP sensor, like the pocketable Sony RX100s, will do that job very well. So technology works!
But - there is always a but, haha, if we are going to view the image on monitors, it will be quite different. Let's say if we take iPhone's Retina display as the standard (Apple claims it is the highest PPI most people ever need at normally close viewing distance, i.e. around 300ppi), then probably we will still be benefitted from even higher resolution monitors. That means, even without pixel-peeping, we may still be higher pixel cameras.
That is not the whole story yet, apart from the resolution, the actual physical size of the pixel also matters. As a general rule, the bigger (the fatter) the pixel, the better quality it renders (lower noise). So a 35mm format 24mp almost is certainly better than a APS-C 24mp. And a APS-C 24mp is almost certainly better than Micro-four-third 24mp. The benefit of lower noise sensors can easily be seen on high ISO performance.
Also, apart from signal-noise-ratio, different sensor sizes also create different looks, i.e. the perspective of the image, which is also related to the "bokeh" (out-of-focus) effect. That's why point-and-shoot camera can hardly achieve shallow depth of field, or the so called "professional" camera look.
And then we have the jpeg vs raw debate. I am a firm believer of raw files. The reason actually is rather simple: Only raw files can provide enough leeway for digital post-processing. For me, the analogy is like this: Shooting raw is like keeping the film negatives, one can do darkroom to vastly alter the image with the negatives again in later days. Shooting jpeg instead is like only keeping the prints and discarding the negatives. If the prints are good and you are happy with that, you are fine. But in many cases, there are always flaws in the image, like blown-out or under-exposure, or inaccurate color balance, etc. Then there is very, very little can be done without image degradation with jpegs.
It is again a hard lesson I learnt from myself. I used to have a very good jpeg-rendering camera - a Fuji S3pro, one of a kind in its days with superb jpeg color. Then for a year or so, I only shoot JPEG with it (because saving raws was painfully slow on that camera). Now I really regret so much that I cannot retouch some of those files with better software algorithm today. Again, it is back to the "invest for the future" logic.
Photography is a really fun thing. And certainly there is a wide spread gear-acquisition-syndrome in the community. I think the difficulty is to understand what one really needs. Unlike audio, that most of us just use it to listen to music, the camera is a tool. We use it to MAKE photos. Then we need to look at what the usage really is.
For a wildlife photographer or sports photographer, they will need telephoto lenses with big aperture and fast AF camera bodies. For that approach, it is very hard to save money to buy anything less than top-notch (or at least semi-pro). But if one's goal is landscape shoot, then it is much easier and cost-saving. And if one goal is to do portraits, then one question needs to be asked is how demanding you are
. One may need a medium format for the perfect skin tone or one can get by with a entry level camera with a lensbaby lens that does some creative effects.
But equipment cannot change the fact that a good camera doesn't warrant a good picture.
