In the end, intention rules the roost... and (in a sense) pays for my gear.
Even though the Nikon ups the ante in megapixels over my lowly 28mp back, the sensor size renders a different look completely... and that larger-sensor rendition, especially as it relates to DoF, is something that can't be replicated on the smallish sensor. As Fred has shown wonderfully in another thread, go to 6x7 film and the rendition changes even more dramatically. Right now, even my smallish 44x33 sensor and the RZ glass have a look that is worlds different than anything I've gotten from 35mm-land (and I've shot Nikon, Canon, and Sony professional bodies for a living)... and this has nothing to do with good/bad, but everything to do with proclivities towards a certain rendering of the image plane and the subsequent falloff of sharpness behind (and in front of) said plane.
So.. due to my intentions to shoot subjects with an eye towards how the larger sensor/lens combos render, the D800 won't fit the bill no matter how it "lives up to its promise".
The sample in this thread looks horrible. I hope others are better... even though I've never seen high-mp nikon camera with a very pleasing rendering on skin.
Oh... I couldn't get into a well performing D800 system (due to lens costs needed to live up to the high MP) for what I got into my RZ/Aptus system... my RZ cost less than 1/2 the d800, lenses are roughly $200-$400, and my aptus was about the cost of a 200/2 VR. I'm well outfitted in MF land for less than most think it costs. So no money bias here.
It's about the image and, yes, SIZE MATTERS.