I commit often (to a feature branch), and I totally missed your points here. And I certainly prefer to merge over rebase as then revisions stay (and who cares about that extra commit?). When merging back to upper branch there is a possibility to squash commit if there were some unfortunate ones.

Having finer-grained commit history gives a possibility to use git bisect to pin point breaking changes. Huge commits are useless in that respect. Large commits also make it hard to revert certain changes independently of others, if needed.

Perhaps these things are partially about developers own taste, but points are weak. Granted, changes in the commit should represent logically complete increment, but definitely not the whole feature.