You Are Preaching To The Choir...
Well I hate to say it this way...
I was specifically referring to pro forums with a higher barrier of entry (DP Review doesn't fall into that category...) You are inferring some things from what I wrote that are the opposite of what I meant.
In my years in the photo biz I have rubbed shoulders with a fair number of well-known shooters and as photographers tend to do we would talk gear over a few beers. Those amateurs that you referred to would probably be surprised at all the non-pro cameras that are used by people at the top of the game. Usually the reason is because such cameras are smaller and lighter; other times it's because a particular model has a feature that isn't available on a pro model.
For example, when Nikon released the FM2 with its revolutionary 1/200 flash sync speed the L.A. Times immediately purchased forty bodies. The paper's staff photographers eschewed the pro F2 for a lighter-duty body that eliminated ghosting when using fill-flash in bright sunlight. That fast flash sync was a Very Big Deal circa 1980.
Galen Rowell often used variants of the FM and FE Nikons because they were small, light and reliable. When you make your living climbing mountains and run uphill for miles to "unset the sunset" as Galen like to say, small and light tends to trump big and heavy. (Galen turned me onto the Nikkor Series E 75-150 zoom, which originally sold for around $100. It was an ancestor of the ubiquitous "kit lens," part of a troika of cheap lenses designed to be used with Nikon's amateur-oriented EM camera. The 75-150 was small, light, sharp and only 2/3 of a stop slower than the huge 80-200 f2.8 zoom. It became the darling of New York fashion photographers and Rowell. I still use a 75-150 that I bought in the used section of a tiny camera shop in Klamath Falls, Oregon many years ago.)
A more recent example is travel photographer Bob Krist, who favors the Nikon D90 over the arguably more rugged and capable DXXX and full-frame brethren. Bob travels a LOT and the pounds add-up when flying and shooting up to 12 hours a day to make a living.
I've always tended toward the lighter Nikons. Fortunately, my work doesn't require the features found in the top-end cameras. In the beginning it was a money thing; then after using cameras like the F3 (with a motor drive that doubled the size and weight of the camera...) I settled on non-pro Nikons and never looked back. I really enjoyed the F3's silky-smooth film-advance lever and quiet shutter but its 1/80 flash sync meant it stayed in my office more and more after I bought an FM2. The D800 is as big as I'll go and that's pushing my limit...
BTW, I also have a D200. It's probably my fave Nikon (with the Nikkormat FT2 being a close second). It's a keeper even though it cannot keep up with more modern DSLRs in the high ISO department. I use it when I know that I can keep it in its sweet-spot of ISO 100-400.
One area that pros don't skimp on are lenses. Except for low-cost gems such as the 75-150, we usually don't cut corners in that area. I still use Nikkors that I purchased in 1981. They don't have auto-focus of course, but they meter just fine with the current "prosumer" and pro Nikons.
These days I can afford any computer and camera gear that suits my fancy. But I still get what matches my needs and that rarely requires the Latest and Greatest. Both my wallet and back appreciate it!
