Why does the cost of camera, or the type of camera matter?

I use the Nikon D3100 myself, but some people I know use the things like the 60D canon, and more fancier cameras like the D7100. But the quality of some of the cheap camera's and expensive lense combo are doing very well. So, why is it that the more expensive camera's seem to matter at all, as long the quality is still great? I just really love my D3100, because it's small and easy to carry around, and it produces great quality picks. Wouldn't it seem that the bigger camera's are for more of fast speeds and fancy model shoots?

It depends on what you do. Some like to have low light capabilities, or super-telephoto, or high speed. Every camera has it's strengths and weaknesses.

Well, I use the same camera model as yours and the cost depends on the features. For example, new cameras have Wi-Fi, you can share your photos on Facebook, twitter, etc. There are also new effects and new external features there. So, concisely, cost depends on the features. More, innovative features, more expensive

"reminiscent" could not have said it better! When you spend more money for a camera such as you mention, it is for various reasons. There are many on this web site that can only think Canon or Nikon while these cameras get the most "play" Sony takes 3rd place. And Pentax takes 4th. Just the fact that you are asking I see a different question in your question. Perhaps you need to have the more expensive DSLR's "justified" in their price. Well I'm here to tell you that in "this" case, YOU do not need a more expensive camera. You WILL know that day when it happens! You will be using your camera more times in a week, perhaps even five days a week. So just based on the tone of your question I would just stick with or "console" yourself that you have enough of a camera. In fact you said it rather good! Your camera is small and easy to carry around. As you said. That says to me that you are very comfortable with your present model and that you are "free" to create more interesting pictures, rather than model hop and not advance your craft of photography.

There's always an element of snobbery in any high-end pursuit. Photography is no different. There are people who can afford to buy "the best" right from the word go, and many of them have neither the skills nor the interest to fully exploit the potential of what they own. That's just life. Look at how many city dwellers own a 4x4, or a 250mph supercar, when they never go off road or take it to a race track.

The fact is that for the majority of people who do own a decent Digital SLR aren't doing anything more than perhaps some portrait and landscape shots. Any decent $200 used camera from 10 years ago would do just as well as the latest "wow - must have" camera. It's equally true that a good photographer can get better shots with a basic camera than a gadget-boy with better gear.

I know these two things to be true from personal experience. The last motorcycle I owned was way better than my riding skill. On cameras; two of us dads photographed our kids junior prom. Jim had a really nice late model Nikon, and what looked like nice lens and flash with diffuser. I had my lowly Canon 400d with a couple of ES-F bog standard lenses and a 420EX Speedlight. His shots were sharper and with more shadow detail. But I got better reactions from the kids and my shots were more interesting.

I know that my camera is now limiting the range of what I can capture. So I'll appreciate the benefit of a lens and/or body upgrade more than someone who is perhaps just upgrading because of the latest glowing reviews.

Well, I guess most of like the latest gadgets and highest specs.
Human Nature I suppose.