I read it, but I'm not sure I totally agree with it. If the goal were simply to make photographs I'd shoot digital. With a good DSLR the quality is close enough to good medium format as to make no practical difference at realistic print sizes, and it is far, far easier. But I enjoy the process of conventional photography. I enjoy getting away from the computer and getting my hands wet. It is, for me, clearly not solely about the image; it's also about the process.
I see your point, Roger, but I see it differently for my purposes. For me, it's all about getting a piece of equipment that gets out of the way of what I'm doing. The less clutter and options, the more time I can spend with the subject matter, and to me that's what really counts.
The whole process thing I think is almost a natural thing for film/darkroom photographers. We wouldn't be doing it if we didn't love making our prints with the aid of a fully tangible, smelly, and chemistry laden process.
I guess to me it's two separate processes:
1. Shooting film - it's the least expensive way to make negatives for the silver gelatin print sizes I desire. I could shoot digital and make digital negatives, but that would be infinitely more expensive for me.
I tremendously enjoy the anticipation of seeing what the negative does in the darkroom. I passionately hate developing film, though, so the more standardized that process is, the happier I am. Shooting = fun, processing = sucks.
2. Darkroom work - this is what I burn with passion to do, and where my creative juices really start flowing. This is where I work with the negatives to eke as much out of them as I possibly can, and I spend hours on end doing it, and I can't get enough.
Those two processes are separate in my mind, and for the film shooting part I need equipment that is as transparent as possible, meaning that it's so intuitive to use that it vanishes from my chain of decision.
In the second process, printing, I want equipment and materials that enable me to get the very most out of a printing session, and why I end up spending a fair bit of time with each print, making sure I don't have to come back and re-print it later on, because I likely never will, unless it sells.
It's about having fun, so your whole 'might as well shoot digital' doesn't hold water for some people. The shooting part I probably would be just as happy with a Leica M9, but I would be 100% miserable doing post processing on a computer.
So, to get back to the audio analogy - some people focus only on the music, listening intently for lyrics or musical element of the music that they enjoy, or just plain like it. Others just satisfy the intellectual challenge of building a truly awesome stereo, spending thousands of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars on equipment. Then there are those who do both, actual lovers of music with enough energy and funds to build an incredible audio setup, so that they can enjoy their music EVEN MORE. It is so good that it gets out of the way of the music, and gets you focused on the music rather than the equipment.
One of my friends come to mind, and I would guess that for every $1,000 he spends on CDs and vinyl, he probably spends about $100 on equipment. He has struck an amazing balance in his system, to the point that it's chameleon versatile and plays just about everything with real vigor and authority. But it's all to bring out the best in the music. Often we go to the gym together, and he enjoys what I play for him on my crappy car stereo...
With that long wound reply, I guess some people pursue really good equipment in order to enable themselves to be absolutely 'free to see' when the time comes to click the shutter. The tools are a means to an end, and you can sort of feel the process rushing through your head and veins, imagining what the picture will look like once transformed into a print. That, to me, is the tool to strive for, and I might look for it with a highly selective mind, to get just what I want. Unfortunately these cameras tend to be Hasselblads and Leicas, at least for me.