[matthew]

Not that I can afford. This camera, according to all reviews, has an image quality that is [...] The only thing better would be [...] and I can't afford them.

So, respectfully, I would say that image quality is your second determining factor in deciding which camera you bought. Affordability is a common restriction, but a real one that should still be considered. It was on my list too, but further down.

These may be rhetorical: would you still have chosen the 5D over all others if it had a 1FPS burst rate? A three-image buffer? Only one AF point, which performed poorly in low light? Weighed four kilograms? Ate batteries for breakfast? Had a shutter slap that sounds like a concussion grenade? Had only a handful of lenses available? A grip that just couldn't be held comfortably?

These are extreme and unrealistic exaggerations, but maybe image quality doesn't come second?

For entry-level dSLRs the market is more varied in terms of features and drawbacks, but at any price there are very few cameras that have bad image quality. I still believe that most people can consider this problem safely solved, and look at other issues first.