I ask myself, do I want my color information approximated or a representation of actual color information.
But what I find in my work is that Foveon provides me with more latitude to challenge artistic convention.
Bayer digital has issues with highlights in particular-- but having three layers of intensity information per pixel provides the extra information for bringing out those highlights and using negative fill light.
There are other issues that have to do with artifacts and color smugging with Bayer that I would rather not have to deal with.
I like a camera that requires you, the photographer, to exercise full control of your capture in the confines of your environment and timing. That of course requires knowing enough to ride the camera like a bike. And Foveon like a bike, bayer basically pollutes like a car (what I like to call Resolution Bloat)
The camera firmware of the SD14 has had it's faults and so does the new software for the PC.
However, none of these faults effect the quality of your picture...and those faults are being corrected.
Once you reach the point of satisfying your expectations every time with the instrument, there is not much reason to turn back to Bayer.
But follow the heard[sic] if you like. There must be something good about the DX2's if NASA [...] over 50 [...]
But that requires reading into the history of their relationship. IQ is not a concern for what they use these cameras. Rather spend, durability and reliability under extreme conditions are some of the reasons.