You can get used to whatever power you have available.
I have a pair of Nikon Monarch 7x42s and 8x30s and an older pair of Nikon 10x40s.
All three are good binocs (the Monarchs are excellent), but frankly I find that 9 times out of 10, I reach for the 8x30s when going out in the field. Yes, the 7x42s are a tiny bit brighter but not enough that it justifies the extra weight on my shoulders for a long day (the Monarch 8x30s are amazingly bright for such small binocs - most 8x30s are not). It isn't just the weight, it is the size that bugs me. I usually have a camera with a 100-400 lens and often my shotgun microphone with me. I don't want any more stuff on my body than I have to and physical space on my neck/shoulders is at a premium when I'm in the field.
I almost never bother with the 10x binocs, in fact, I'm not sure when the last time they came out of the closet was? It has probably been a couple of years.
I often bird with someone who uses a pair of Nikon 8x42 Nikon Premieres ($1600) and I generally have my 8x30 Nikon Monarch 5 ($300). When looking at the same bird in the same conditions, there is a slight difference in image quality (more likely due to the 42 vs 30 diameter) , but not $1300 worth. And the problem with $1K+ binoculars is you tend to treat them like they are made of crystal and spend time worrying about them in the field instead of birding. I can afford more expensive binoculars, but I'm not sure it is a good investment. I need a pair I can leave on the floor of the car or drop in the mud and not get all worked up. They aren't an investment, they are a tool. Frankly, I would rather have 3 pairs of $300 binocs than a $1K pair. That way I could bring two pairs on a trip in case one gets lost/stolen/broken.
Also, if you told me I had $1500 to spend on birding I would rather spend $300 on a quality pair of binocs $1200 on a birding trip than $1500 on binocs that I have to stay home with.
But I've only been birding seriously for 33 years. Once I get better at it I might feel differently.