Would it be improper to point out that for Mr. Majoli's work, and the work of a vast number of professional photographers, a huge SLR is almost never called for? Given digital distribution and print sizes, not to mention the print quality of most newspapers, an image's technical qualities are of little importance.
I think most professional photograhers use an SLR for lens choice and to control the focus and exposure. They shoot digital because it makes their employer's job easier - the photographer can be told do all the work that used to be delegated to a staff, and nobody has to pay the photographer any more money. It certainly isn't because digital is somehow superior when it comes to fine art prints.
But it's just foolish to say "the tool doesn't matter." IMHO it's "tool for the job," and therefore the tool certainly does matter. Just because somebody has a job where a cheap P&S works as good as an expensive and bulky system doesn't change that.
A cheap P&S won't give me control over exposure, and a digital won't give me creative control of film choice or developing time, and takes away the creative options using an enlarger and replaces them with an inkjet printer.
If all you care about is the image, where does the craft come in? There are all kinds of images. I'm not really interested in the product of zero craft that is churned out on demand by a machine. For the same reason I don't harbor feelings of longing for cheap Ikea furniture.