Are top of the range DSLR cameras a waste of cash?

Will good quality photo edit software you can make a picture from a Nikon D40 look stunning, So why buy a Nikon D7000?
I know about the faster shoot rate and the more auto focus points etc etc on the D7000

For an amateur, I'd say yes. Unless you actually need the fast rates, and the ability to play around with depth of focus etc in-camera, they are a waste. I have a humble lumix and I'm more than happy with the results.

Yea, but if your an amateur photographer don't bother buying the fancy cameras unless you have sone spare pennies. Yea its a TOTAL waste of cash, I once bought a camera that was 250 it was really good (I'm pro) and my cousin bought one for 400 hundred mine worked better and lasted depends on the brand: D xxxx

To paraphrase J. P. Morgan on yachts: If you have to ask, you don't need one.

Besides the technical differences, pro DSLRs are better sealed against dust and moisture and have shutters that are built to stand up to the thousands of cycles a pro will need.Pro cameras also are built to take advantage of the full range of the maker's accessories, not just some of them. They also qualify for service plans for pros run by the manufacturer that include loaner cameras when needed. Pros use their cameras every day, under all kinds of conditions and they need them fixed fast or they can't work. A weekend snapshooter doesn't need any of that.

If an amateur wants a pro camera and can afford the price, that's great. If not, you are absolutely correct that wonderful pictures can be made with less costly cameras. Dust sealing and durable shutters don't make better images, after all.

Actually even if you didn't edit a photo from a D40 it would still look stunning…

It's not really about image quality, when it does matter you go out and buy a Hasselblad. The more advanced SLRs bring different dimensions to the game, ergonomics, extra functionality, things that mean that a photographer can get a better hit rate.

The D40 is a fine camera, but if you wanted to track a moving subject you'd need a D300 or a D7000, or a D3. Any photographer that works outdoors needs the rugged build of a professional camera, here you wouldn't want to use the unsealed D40 when it was raining, but a professional has to work whether it's sunny or snowing.

The bigger Nikons also have wireless CLS, granted it's not as good as a Pocketwizard, but a good set of PWs will set you back over £200 for a pair, CLS is built in and essentially costs nothing extra.

So the point is never outright image quality, much of photography is about how the camera is to use, and that's what you're actually paying extra for. Sure if you can work at a leisurely pace, and not out there all seasons then you'd be fine with a D40, but professionals aren't these people, that's why the D300, D7000, D700 and D3 exist.

If you have a D40 keep it. If you don't have anything, save a stack of cash by getting the Sony A390.

Nikon D7000 is mid-range, not top of the range.

For people who shoot nature or sports then the extra af and drive capability of a better camera is money well spent.

For people who perhaps have nikon legacy lenses that still have a life on a D7000 (but not on a D40, different communication and AF systems) it's not a waste of cash.

For people with big hands, it's not a waste of cash.

For people who prefer a pentaprism to a pentamirror it. Not a waste of cash.

For people who want a decent video mode but have bought into the nikon system, it. Not a waste of cash.

A D40 in capable hands can produce excellent shots, but in some situations it just isn't up to the job.

Horses for courses.

Some folk buy a higher spec camera because they want to and they can afford to and why not?

They may not use anywhere near it's potential, but if it makes them happy then why bemoan it?