Your scenario is virtually identical to my experience. Went all in with the Bronica ETRSi system (which I still own) around 1988/1989 and sold all my Canon equipment (A-1's & FD lenses). But bought some Contax rangefinders when the kids came along. I was a slow/late convert to digital.
I'm definitely moving through a lot more equipment at a faster pace than during those years.
The equipment these days are so much more versatile/flexible/powerful and in so many more hands that it boggles my mind sometimes. Manufacturers must have sold so few cameras back in the film era in comparison. The emphasis was on film technology back then. Since digital equipment is both camera and "film", it makes sense that we all tend to go through bodies faster. Whatever the cost of the digital bodies, I'm always reminded how much film would have cost me over the life of an analog body. Good times ahead!
I still have two ETRSi bodies and a bevy of lenses, all to serve professional uses of cameras. The Olympus gear did not go away, it was retained for non-photographic vacations, although I did take a number of vacations that had photographic primary purpose, on which the Bronica gear went with me. I never sold off the Olympus, because it represented a 'different tool, for different purposes'...you don't sell your screwdriver because you have a wrench!
I still have my first film SLR...it was $160 when new, with normal lens. And finally, about 3 years ago, I just acquired the object of my teen camera lust while paging thru photography magazines, the Beseler Topcon Super D, which was a totally unattainable $420 back when gas was $0.30 per gallon and median annual US household income was $6500!
Back in the 1970s, putting 100K exposures thru a body was unheard of, even in the lifetime of a camera... 100K = nearly 2800 rolls of film, with processing and printing...I don't recall cost of color back then but guessing $10 total cost for all that would mean $28000 in film and processing...over 3 entire years of median family income, in 1968 ($8632). So in the 9 year period in which the Nikon F2 ruled the world before the F3 launch, it was unlikely that the body would be worn out by an average consumer, as it represented $2800 annual film+processing expense, still close to 20% of the median US family income in 1975 ($13800). Now folks do 25k shots in a single year.