Why a low-level DSLR can be enough

In one of my previous posts I came up with some "shares" that the photographer, the camera body and the lenses have in the alchemy of a "good picture".
I  didn't change my mind from that, and I'd really like to make use of this picture to tell you why:

I took this picture few days ago, around half past five in the afternoon (yep winter is almost here, and days are definitely getting shorter!) using my Nikon D3200 and what is being my favorite lens lately: Nikkor 35mm 1.8.
I shot this holding the camera - see my post "Why I wish a tripod for Xmas" - and trying to make the best out of what I had: maximum aperture available (f1.8) and pumping up the ISO to 800 in order to have a shutter speed in the range of 1/"focal length", that turned out being 1/30s.
Now, knowing that a tripod would have solved almost any problem - maybe even just a rock upon which to put the camera - I'd like to tell you the good things about this shot.

Easy things first: the photographer, that counts for roughly 55-60%. The composition isn't bad. It's not great neither. It's just a shot without any real history behind. A regular city shot at dust, with the add of some running and calm water.

Camera, that should not count more than 10-20%: you can really see that the "cheap" sensor with whom the D3200 comes with doesn't really perform great at "high" ISO. I mean, ISO 800 isn't "high" in general, but as you see from the sky color it is already pretty high for this camera. And that's actually a good thing because it can be solved extremely easily with longer exposure times!

Lens (25-35% of the shot): the sharpness pf the 35mm isn't really evident here because I had to shoot wide open: if I could have close down to 5 or 5.6 everything would have been much sharper, and anyway I wouldn't have lost anything form the point of view of depth of field. But here is the big power of a good lens: it let you shoot a wide apertures! That gives you the possibility to either shoot decently in low light situation and to create really nice composition controlling the depth of field!

So, all of this to say what?
What I want to point out is that until you shoot steady subjects you don't really need any super mega fancy camera and still you can get something remarkable. The power of a DSLR over a P&S is that you are in control, so you can choose the exposure time, the aperture and so on giving yourself the chance to take really good pictures also with a "cheap" D3200.

Do you agree with me? Or do you think that the fancier the camera the better it is, no matter what else?
And, what really matters to me, what about the shot? how would you have improved it? Don't you think a tripod would have made a big difference?