What did you pay for your watch? You can buy a working watch for 5$, so why pay more?
You can buy a shirt on ebay for 1$, so why buy a shirt for 50$?
If our life was only determined by economic based decisions it would be sooo boaring.
If everybody was happy with just 95% there would be much less innovations.
Nothing against the D800 and maybe I will even buy one one day (maybe I might prefer a D4 for my intended use) but what is the sense to compare it to an S2?
How much one wants to pay for a little more quality is a totally personal decission. And if I couldnt afford the S2 I know I would be totally happy with a D800 as well, I would be happy with the D700 too by the way.
The best ROI for a hobby photographer would be to give up the hobby and sell all his gear.
You make excellent points. If people only purchased things based on economic needs, why would elitist brands and "luxury" items exist? Why would any of us own more than a 5D? Or a Rebel T3i, for that matter? Simply put, the economic model of "need" is an incomplete assessment of the situation. It fails to factor in desire -- the human side of the equation, and in some cases, not saying this applies to anyone in the MF world -- conspicuous consumption.
Regardless of the economic aspects, he camera is not the most important aspect of the puzzle to me, it's just a piece. The prints, at the end of the day, mean the most in my opinion. This is why I purchased a P65+, then later an Aptus-II 12. Printing large, and clearly is my goal.
I'll likely pick up a D800E when it's released and use my TS canon lenses on it via adapters. I've long been considering picking up a P45+ to complement my Aptus-II 12, but they're both rare and fairly expensive, still. If this sensor has even remotely decent long-exposure capabilities, I'm sold. Will I feel less "professional," or somehow "embarrassed" using a DSLR? Not at all. It's a tool; a means to an end.
I'm interested in color handling, and tonal transitions, gradients. Sharpness/resolution is really only part of the equation, naturally. I'm specifically interested to see if it can match/approach the dynamic range of MF. With 14-bit files, I am inclined to believe that the tonal variations will be much more noticeable than the contemporary offerings from Leaf/Hass/Phase, and subtle tones will suffer due to this. I went from shooting Canon 5Ds and 1Ds to shooting the P65+, and the Aptus-II 12, and the gradient/tonal handling is likely what impressed me most, as well as the useful dynamic range.
There are natural FoV/DoF concerns inherent to different formats. It remains to be seen just how much of a role diffraction will play into this sensor's performance, as well. I do speculate quality loss due to diffraction will onset fairly quickly, however, but with the use of TS lenses, it should be possible to see near the real resolution.
At the end of the day, though, the real issue in my eyes is the prints. I'm actually a little surprised this hasn't been mentioned before. . . this is the end-result, right? If it can create the same end result, I see no reason not to buy it. If, however, I see the prints being noticeably inferior, well, at least it's reasonably inexpensive.