Chromatic aberration doesn't necessarily mean that the camera is crap. It usually means a crap lens.
When the camera (and specifically the sensor) is junk, you get a weird mottled effect wherein red, green, and blue are each significantly over-reported in small, adjacent regions of 30-50 pixels (one of the colors being over-reported per region) -- an effect that is particularly obvious when a photo is taken in low lighting conditions, because even slight over-reporting of one color can cause a dark area to be dominated by that color. Cameras in the less-than-$100 range have a strong tendency to be plagued by this problem if you try to take photos in anything short of broad daylight. The only ways I've found to fix such a photo are A) reduce it to grayscale or B) reduce the resolution to the point where each pixel contains parts of more than one of the 30-50-pixel regions from the original photo; this typically means you have to reduce the dimensions by a factor of at least 4, sometimes 8.
Alternately, if your camera is *extremely* bad (like, say, the ones built into cheap phones) you can get an image with very poor color depth (like, worse than 16-bit color -- in excruciatingly severe cases, not very much better than 8-bit color; like, a person's entire face may have only three distinct shades of color in it), which is quite painful to look at.
Why was your car on a roof?
It was parked on an access road to a bridge.
In what universe is it acceptable to park a car on a bridge access road overnight? Vandalized? It should have been towed at the owner's expense, on top of the ticket and fine.
Really skilled photographers can get good pictures even with crappy cameras,
Up to a point, but there are limits. (The cameras built into a lot of cheap phones are incapable of producing a quality image no matter how |_|83r1337 the photographer is.)
Really skilled photographers can get good pictures even with crappy cameras, and complete amateurs will still take amateur photos with the best equipment.
Somewhere in the middle, there are people like me, people who have a really hard time getting a usable image out of cheapo consumer-grade cameras (unless we take in broad daylight or heavily post-process the image with levels and unsharp masks and whatnot and still have to scale it down at least 4x, resulting in a web-resolution image unsuitable for many printing purposes) but can get passable images (good enough to meet our own standards, anyway) even in rather mediocre lighting conditions out of a somewhat better camera.
Yeah, I know, I'm not the world's greatest photographer. I don't always line up the shot perfectly. Sometimes I find that I have to crop a little. Sometimes I don't find quite the perfect angle from a lighting perspective. Shouldn't I be able to take a halfway-decent photo now and then anyway? A decent camera really helps with that.