Good posting, Andre.
There will always be the dreaded discussions about higher vs. lower cost equipment; back in the anlogue days people would try and prove how their Leicas can perform as well as an RZ or a Blad.
I'm not sure what people's motivations are to question the superiority of a bigger format, which to me still is as obvious as it was with film after switching to an Aptus 75 from 4x5, as far as quality is concerned.
My back was paid for after some months, and is making money since, that's mostly advertising and some editorial thrown in.
I understand that different assignments ask for different tools, and some people can't charge their clients enough to cover the costs of an MFDB.
But in my line of work it is expected that I use the best tools available, ad agencies are ready to pay for it, so that's what they get.
Apart from that, I'd never settle for anything but top-tier equipment for my personal work as well, nor do I know pro photographers who would.
I'm also not buying the argument of displays and printers limiting the quality of the output; I used to make my own prints from 4x5 negatives, still have my darkroom, yet my Aptus, Mac + Photoshop and cheepish Epson printer blow any analogue print out of the water, no contest.
As for monitors, even an Apple ACD, properly calibrated, gives you all the information you need to judge and adjust a file, imho, if one has experience working with chromes and negatives a lot.