I would like to see a photo...

...that would have sold for less money, or not sold at all, if it had been taken with lesser equipment.

Clearly, some cameras have definite operational advantages over others which makes capturing the photo in the first place the differentiator between cameras (e.g. fast and accurate AF).  However, what I'm talking about here is a photo that was successfully captured, and would have been successfully captured with lesser equipment, but the difference in IQ was substantial enough to either make the photo unsellable, or, at least, sell for less.

For example, show me a pic that would sell if it was taken with a 5D3, but would not sell (or sell for less) if it had instead been taken with a 40D.  I mean, we all know the 5D3 does produce photos with higher IQ, all else equal, and enjoys substantial operational advantages, but how does the IQ differential translate into the commercial value of the photos taken?

So, let's see the pic.  Show me a pic (or pics) you took that would sell, but not sell (or sell for less) if it had been instead taken with, say, a 40D.