For me the problem is "great" and "crappy".
I'm not a fan of the Dogma movement and didn't find any of
the movies made to be great. And right here on this thread
most of the cameras mentioned were not at the time "crappy".
The XL-2 used for "28 Days Later" was a top of the line digital
camera at the time. The Sony used to shoot "Inland Empire"
was an excellent camera in 2005. Hi-8 was an excellent format
in the late 1980's and the cameras by Sony had top of the line
optics and lenses.
But this is what's truly important:
whenever i start getting too hung up on camera quality I simply remind myself that...
People do get hung up on the tech specs of the camera. How
many of you have looked at the movie made by Mannie Bothans
on a Kodak pocket camera? Now that might be considered a
"crappy" camera and his movie looks quite good. He's been
obsessing over camera specs yet when challenged by wheatgrinder
to make a movie with what he has, he made a very watchable
movie.
It isn't the camera used - it's how you use the camera.
Sorry I can't come up with other examples, dr stilly, but I don't
know of any non-dogma films shot on crappy cameras. I know a
lot of movies shot on SD cameras that got theatrical release, but
most were shot on good cameras.