Too many small imagers out there

I've clicked on quite a few links to
images. Things like M42, M27, etc. They
could be anything, only to be confronted by
tiny images created with widefield, small
aperture instruments. I admit these scopes
do nicely when it comes to large DSOs like
M31, or starfields, but there is nothing
particularly interesting or useful about
1/2" wide images of M42, etc. I figure that
people are using these things because they are
easy to carry around, generally pretty fast
(focal ratio-wise) and can be mounted on inexpensive,
lightweight GEMs or forks to do photography with.
But when the images look like they might have
come from a Canon 300mm telephoto, generally something
is missing. There is something to be said for
images of individual deepsky objects created with scopes
having focal lengths of 1000mm or more, and enough
aperture (and hence focal speed) to capture the details
in the average sized deepsky object. I remember a guy
named Martin Germano who used to use a C8 to shoot
planetary nebula, and I thought it was "daring" at the
time because of the small image scale, but he even shot
with longer (barlowed) focal ratios and long periods to
obtain some decent image scale. I even remember one of
the most memorable shots of the interior of M42 having
been shot with a C11 used at 3900mm over a long exposure,
and it was one of the first I ever saw to really capture
the interior detail of the nebula and trapezium. Prior
to that, I saw small m-42 shots all looking alike, with burned out
cores and the outer nebula showing.