Hi Dennis,
I really enjoy this discussion and the fact that the people here are not taken by the Megapixel and lab test craze you find so often in other places.
Although my experience is very limited with digital SLR, I can say the following:
1. I always shoot RAW (which is compressed NEF in my D70), and the file size is around 6MB per picture. RAW gives many more possibilities to fix or adjust things afterwards, and let's me concentrate on the main issues while shooting (framing, exposure, focus, DOF, lighting). I also use the Adobe RGB color space which gives a slightly bigger color gamut.
2. I spend at least the same time if not more doing minimal post-processing in Nikon Capture (and very little in PS) than actually shooting pictures.
3. I always keep an original, untouched NEF file as a copy. While this is not really necessary, since you can revert all changes on the NEF file without any loss, it's often easier to start from scratch and the likelyhood that a file gets corrupted is very small.
4. I use the NC to output TIFF files, which I then convert in PS to sRGB and then jpeg for web or printing small size (which I do outside, since it's much cheaper - however, they usually don't process Adober RGB correctly).
5. On a 2.4GHz AMD with 768MB RAM Nikon Capture just about works OK, but it isn't the fastest. Converting 50 NEFs into TIFF takes some 5 minutes more or less, using the Batch utility. Using the D-Lighting feature will slow down things even more. A TIFF file takes around 32MB disk space.
6. I use 1Gbyte flashs which can hold around 180 pictures in NEF format only (without jpegs).
7. To back up my stuff, I use a second hard disk. In addition, I burn the files on DVD. Each picture, with multiple NEF and jpeg copies (original NEF, modified NEF, jpeg print and jpeg web and sometimes TIFF or psd) takes then around 12-14 MB space on the backup media. On a DVD I can thus save around 300-400 pictures. I store the DVDs at a relative to make sure that I have a real backup should a burglar decide to snatch my PC or a fire destroy the hardware and the DVDs. You can never know.
I go into these details since you will have to consider larger flashs (or more of them) as well as a serious PC for processing, and will still spend more time waiting for the PC to finish the job on a 12 megapixel file.
Although flash prices have come down a lot, this and the PC (fast hardware, memory, disk space, etc.) would be things you would have to add to your $$ calculation. But more than the actual money which you may be willing to spend, are you willing to take the additional time you may need to process larger files?
On the other hand, the D2X is state of the art and very tempting, even to me. If I were printing on A2, this would be the camera. However, a week ago I saw a selfmade A2 size poster hanging on the door of a local photo equipment store. The guy told me he shot this picture with the D2H. Only at very close inspection - after he told me that - did I notice some slight pixelization. From normal viewing distance you wouldn't notice it at all!
The posters I saw at a World Press Photography exhibition some time ago were nearly all taken at around 4-6 megapixel and enlarged to A1. They still looked fine at normal viewing distance. It was the best photography exhibition I can recall. (Wish I were able to do what they've done!)
The real advantage of the D2X - to my humble opinion - is at large landscape prints in high resolution, with lots of details. And this is usually the domain of mid or large format film cams.
If you want to use your DSLR for landscape photography, consider using some stitching software (Panotools, for example) to stitch together several pictures. If done properly (both shooting and stitching), the results can be fantastic. All that you need is a good tripod and perhaps a tripod head where you can adjust the picture plane on the axis.
Regards,