I find most of these conversations amusing. So many great photographs shot for decades by amazing photographers have been shot with every kind of format imaginable, from polaroid, to holgas, 8x10 Sinars to old wobbly deardorfs, nikon FM's and leicaflex's.
I also know that none of these photographers would waste ten minutes discussing the merits of pixel pitch, file size, dr, software, or workflows.
can you imagine avedon, guy Bourdin, helmet newton sitting around a computer talking about which camera was better, the nikon or the hasselblad, the sony or the canon, or which software was better c-1 or lightroom.
in fact if those photographers started their careers today I doubt seriously if the sony or the hasselblad would make that much difference in their final look.
Sure they did/would. Anyone who is obsessed about the quality of their own work will try to improve every part of their chain of production. Not just what camera, lenses, RAW converter etc, but also what people to work with, models, makeup, retouching, post production, lighting, posing, communication, project planning and mental preparations etc. Few people just grab some camera and produce masterpieces.
I could probably produce the same "photo" with most of my cameras (as long as there is not some special characteristics of the camera/lens needed such as super high res, view camera tilting etc), but they are all really different tools for different situations.