Avatar pushed compositing and 3D forward as much as it could, yet in the end people thought, "Yeah, it was pretty, but that movie was really stupid." And they were bored. I'm not saying that aesthetics don't matter, or that if you can shoot in a higher resolution that you shouldn't. I'm saying that you DON'T HAVE TO IN ORDER TO ENGAGE CONSUMERS. Black Swan, 28 Weeks Later, An Inconvenient Truth, and The Wrestler were all shot on Super 16. They are great award winning/nominated/critically acclaimed films. And they will continue to be. It's the story.
And lest we forget, someone who knows what they are doing behind a 5D are going to get a better image than someone who buys a Scarlet/Epic with daddy's money and has no idea what they are doing. As a producer, I've noticed that other people hire for the camera and not the skills. And they end up with really poor footage. Want to see a hilarious example? Check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZSJFHi36ho -- The footage of the elderly people dancing is all shot on RED. The singer is shot with an HVX. The HVX footage blows the RED footage away. Now, I'm not arguing the HVX is better, just that it's better in the right hands, verses someone who doesn't know what they are doing. There were two different camera operators on this particular project (both of whom I know).
There's no argument here about "good enough". It's an argument about "were you able to engage the audience and tell your story?". When we're still shooting in 1080p in 10 years and people are paying millions of dollars (when a new Paranormal Activity comes out that rocks the world) to see it because they are scared, excited, entertained, or whatever, then you've done your job at the end of the day. And they won't care if you shot with a RED, Arri, Sony, Panasonic, or Canon.