The other thing, is that it makes Nikons lesser lenses look like rubbish, and their best ones look none too good.
I was seeing that in the sample images, even with the well regarded 14-24 and it was my biggest concern with a 36+ MP camera. It was why I am happy that Canon kept the 5D MkIII to 22 MP. I'm sure that recent and future lenses will cope fine, but I don't want to think about how my 24-105 and 17-40 would cope with a high resolution sensor, especially in the corners.
36MP is just 16MP equivalent on APSC. so if you shoot with a rebel at 18MP, you're already outresolving the D800 and pushing your lenses much harder. Say nothing of the D3200 with it's 24MP APSC sensor which would be nearly a 60MP sensor if it was full frame. In conclusion, the D800 doesn't really push lenses all that hard. That's a web myth. It is just that until now, nothing pushed the edges and center in a way that would reveal the difference. Yet you're still resolving more even if the center still outresolves the D800 and the edges just keep up. Ultimately ask yourself two questions:
1) You can only capture a better quality version of the image projected by the lens, but never worse as you can always chose a level of detail confortable to you. So why fear MP? It's just flexibility IMO.
2) if you invested big money in glass, why are you not pushing that glass to the max? It's like Keeping a 5DmkI just because of fear the 5DmkII may reveal flaws in some glass while missing out on all the rest.
From my experience, all the f2.8 and f1.4 glass from nikon I've tested has been really good on the D800. 14-24,24-70,70-200 all hold up. Fast primes wide open, as expected need to be stopped down for a truly superb image, yet even wide open, they hold up well and the shallow DOF makes edge detail somewhat irrelevant since it is often out of focus with the subject isolated near the middle. There is more detail to squeeze out of these lenses. I guess the D4X may do it?
And no I would not trade down resolution because I'm getting a few things out of it which regardless of the lens used benefit me thanks to the high sample rate.
1) color graduations. the more pixels the smoother the graduations. particularly evident in landscapes.
2) reduction in demosaic/AA induced softness. more pixels minimizes the degradation due to the bayer pattern as perceived in very fine detail.
3) less aliasing stair casing effect on fine detail. Even with AA filters, I'm finding that just like with AA in video games, downsampling yields slightly better looking images.
I think we're going to see 30-40MP become the new baseline for any competitive full frame DSLR with the boundaries being pushed much further since there are benefits beyond just detail when you ovesample an imagehttp://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120524_1-Nikon-D3200.html
You guys worry now but I'm sure once canon has done the inevitable jump to 30-40 MP, EVERYBODY is going to be saying the same thing: It was silly to fear the pixels.
This was the same fear we had when the 20MP canon DSLRs came out and nobody even thinks twice to question that move today.