Sally,
That is funny. If nothing else I'd love to see that website if you still have the address. So if you don't care to have me shoot photos for you, I would still like to read what they say.
A camera is a tool, so my advice would be to look for a photographer based on style. You'll find the most amazingly, well-done portraits in a photographer's gallery, and then come to find out that they shot them with a 4 megapixel camera that was made way, way back in 2001. In that case, the picture probably wouldn't be able to be blown up to 40 x 60 inches like a 16.7 megapixel image from the Canon 1Ds Mark II camera could, but up to 11 x 14 inches, you would be hard pressed to see a difference in quality between the two cameras (if they were both shot right).
As a professional, I see myself as pretty up on cameras and equipment (ok, ok, so ask my wife and all I do for hours at a time is read up on cameras [that is why I would be interested in seeing the site you read off of]), and I see a lot of brand wars out there.
You'll find that one camera is more capable at certain things than another, and visa versa. Canon has a corner on very low light shooting (it has less noise [like film grain] when shooting in a very, very dimly lit place when no flash is used [ISO 1600 and up]). Nikon beats Canon in flash and lens technology (depending on which zealot you ask).
In the end it is like some guys and their trucks. I'm not much into trucks, so as an outside observer it makes me laugh when I hear all of these guys arguing over towing capacity and other stuff. What is laughable to an outsider is that they are arguing over something like 325 horsepower as opposed to 300 horse power. To them the 25 horsepower really matters (and you can see it in their blazing eyes when they argue), but to an outsider we ask "yeah, but won't it still pull my boat regardless of which one I get?"
Taking this analogy one step further: I don't care which hemi full-sized truck some guy has (and how much better they think it is than the other guy's), if they drive scary then I don't want them near my boat (if I had one). Likewise, I see a lot of photos posted online (I frequent the forums where this stuff is endlessly debated about cameras), and some photos taken with a state-of-the art camera are frightening (you could say that they "crashed" the photo). So again it is a tool, and you probably want to be more worried about who is "driving" the camera and where your photos will end up, because anyone with money can buy a nice camera.
I guess I should tell you that I have a Nikon D2x. It is 12 megapixels, and I love the lenses I can get for it. Regardless of what anyone tries to ever tell you, the lenses make the photograph, the camera just captures what the lens gives it. Un-sharp lenses make bad photos even on the best of cameras. I have one lens that cost $1300, and another that was $1600. That is in addition to the camera body (which cost much more than those two together), but they are worth it because they make the image.
If you want to compare this camera with a more expensive camera, here is an objective and well renowned site:
http://www.dpreview.com
Here is their review of my camera (the conclusions page):
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/page28.asp
And the conclusion review of Canon's flagship model (the 1Ds Mark II, that I mentioned above):
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dsmkii/page26.asp
An interesting note is this in the Canon's review:
"So this brings us to our conclusion, surprisingly it wasn't as straightforward as you may think. In my opinion both the EOS-1Ds Mark II and D2X represent the ultimate in current digital SLR technology. The EOS-1Ds Mark II's problem however is its big price tag. In our review of the Nikon D2X we clearly demonstrated that it is more than a match for the EOS-1Ds despite a deficit of 4.4 megapixels. So if you're building an entire new system the D2X will be an attractive proposition. "
And the author (who is generally more favorable to Canon), candidly admitted in the forums that he had a hard time recommending the Canon 1Ds Mark II because the Nikon D2x is basically much more bang for the buck, but then he realized that some people are willing to pay $3000 more if they really want to have enough resolution to shoot billboards for Times Square.
Well, that is probably a much more lengthy response than you had wished for, but it is an interesting subject that is debated endlessly by camera enthusiasts who love their brands and would marry them if they could. I've found, however, that most pros just find what is best for them, use it, and ignore the brand wars.
Again, it would be interesting to see that website, so if you could let me know what website that is, I would love to see it.
Stephen
Bair Photography
.