Inner conflict about camera size

[Update: if you buy in or from the UK, and may want this Canon, see this incredibly low price. This is less than what I paid for the devaluated predecessor, and that didn't include the (excellent and stabilized) lens! This price may even be a temporary mistake....
Update: yep, seems it was a mistake, now it is £480 instead of £300. We'll see if they will honor the price on my order.]
----
You may have noticed a split personality in me, Mr Hyde wanting the ultimate in camera- and image quality, and Mr. Jekyll wanting a small, light, good-enough camera.

I'm not the only one*. And the rapidly changing parameters of quality and price/size in the digital age keeps changing things here. Four years ago I bought a Nikon D2x, which was huge (two kilos with lens) and expensive ($5,000 or so) and heavy. But it was the only camera (except even bigger ones) which had really good image quality.

This is no longer true, you can now buy a digital camera for under $700 (including lens!) which delivers the same (or better) quality, and is half the size and weight. And not only that, I can even get pocket cameras which are pretty damn close also. For $300 and weighing 200 grams. So my inner struggle continues, no need for boredom.

Of course most people don't give a sh_t, they just buy a cheap camera, and when it breaks, they can get a much better one, cheaper. Good for them. :)

*"I could buy 10 "good enough" 450Ds for the price of one 1DsIII. What that means is that considering the price relationship will probably remain much the same, I can buy the next 10 incarnations of the 450D and still have spent the same as buying a 1DsIII today, and all the while I will have kept up-to-date with the technology."
"...as further generations of this level of camera come out I expect more and more pros doing my kind of photography will gravitate towards those sorts of cameras, just as back in the film days we tended to use compact lightweight models like the Olympus OM4, Pentax LX and Minolta 9000."

Yes indeed. I always struggle with the terms "amateur" and "pro". For example, everybody is careful not to call a Nikon D300 a "professional" camera, because there are bigger and more expensive cameras which are the official "pro" cameras. But it's BS, because any camera, even "entry level" ones, can be used by a professional if he judges that the reliability, features, and image quality is sufficient for his specific use.

And Michael Reichman hisself (who regularly uses cameras costing as much as a car and weighing not much less) writes:
"A reasonable question to ask is – why bother with the XSi when there are so many 'better' cameras in the Canon line up? For some it might be cost, though the XSi isn't the least expensive DSLR in Canon's line-up. As for me, I already have a 5D and a 1Ds MKIII, so why bother with a Rebel? Size and weight are the answer..."

Like he also points out:
"Frankly, there are likely no significant image quality or feature advantages to the Canon XSi that make it a must-have over comparably priced models from the other leading camera companies."

They are all very good these days. Ten years ago, most reasonably priced digital cameras were crap. Not anymore.