Yes I agree, equipment does not matter it's the image that matters. Minor White said "no matter how slow the film is, Spirit always stands still long enough for the photographer It has chosen"
I also think it's a mistake to think of equipment as the defining quality between wether the photography can be any good. If the photograph is technically perfect and enormous in size but boring then did the Medium format system (equipment) add anything? Ten years ago major national publications were publishing images from digital cameras and everyone involved were ecstatic with the quality. Today's equipment has clearly surpassed that and it truly is more a matter of what equipment allows you to see the scene.
For me I need the shift lenses, if my vertical lines aren't straight that just drives me crazy and yes I want to see the composition in the viewfinder not thinking how I can correct it in post.
A good equipment sure helps. Though a major part of a good picture is the composition, only a little is added from a better equipment.
Great optical zooms are unbeatable. If you want to capture a distant feature in detail, but can't go near, this helps.
It also depends on whether you're doing an artistic architectural photography or capturing various views+details of a building something for a study. A good equipment capable of taking good photos in less light would certainly be helpful. A small one would be easy to carry in a busy area, easy to move around - point n' shoot.
Some pictures I took with my old phone (nokia6681, 1.3mp) when I didn't have a digicam - http://flic.kr/s/aHsjvzQLYR These work well when you need composition, not high resolution.
(Nowadays they're shooting motion pictures with Digicams as I've heard.)