For commerce, you buy cameras for use, not for perceived resale value.
Nothing today sells for what it's original price was, but I'm not a camera trader, I'm a user.
These forums bring out the fan boys (For some reason, usually Nikon owners) that questions everyone's sanity in buying a higher end piece of equipment, but rarely talk about the photographs they produce.
For me, the S2 fit the bill. In controlled conditions it doesn't shoot a better file than my ancient p30+ and Contax, in real world, pressued production it's twice the camera of my Contax due to it's form factor.
It allows me to use a "film" I like, a ccd based camera in a style that is actually smaller than my 1dx, while allowing my contax lenses go come out of the case and work as intended.
No other company does that, so I'm pleased and if the body dropped to 1/10th the price, it would make no difference to me.
I feel the same about my RED1s. They continue to make us money, allow us to shoot as well or better than any equipment currently made and the resale value isn't important.
The only cameras that bug me are the tweeners, like the Sony FS100. That cost something like 4 grand, was marginal at the time and today will sell for about a grand if I'm lucky.
Still, this forum goes crazy if anyone buys anything they perceive to be excessive, but I can promise you, in the long term my S2 will work at as one of the least expensive cameras I own.
Plus there is always the intangible factor of I like it.
But if it's just megapixels and price ratios that turn you on, the new Pentax isn't the deal, a Nikon D800 is, because by allow accounts everyone says the files look virtually identical. (I've used neither so that is just what I'm told).
Personally, the only still camera equipment I'd buy today is an Aptus 22 for my Contax, because it produced a unique look I've yet to be able to duplicate with my other cameras. I wonder what that sells for today?
Regardless of price, an Aptus 22 with the right lens and setting is still viable.