There are a couple of good points in this thread. Workflow really does not need to change depending on file size, it is barely working now, it will not with ANY newer camera because files are not getting smaller. Drive space is dirt cheap now, and more reliable than ever. I just bought an external hard drive for my laptop for $137, 2Tb. My first hard drive to run my 50+employee business was a Corvus 10megabit($4200) and never could figure I would need more. But that was before the IBM XT came out so there was no alternative to the 360kb floppies. Our needs and expectations change and the value is all relative. We have learned that we get more and more for less and less, and appreciate it less as technology increases the options. Think of a computer as an expendable commodity, not an investment in hardware. External factors will make its functionality obsolete very quickly, such as camera res, video watching and multimedia.
The need to have lots of storage is also directly related to workflow and business needs or personal needs. In the film days, we shot a lot less and could always find another album or shoe box for prints from a few rolls of film. Now, we use the same storage criteria as before but shoot 20 times as much. As Beck suggested, do you REALLY need all those non-keepers? Be more critical. Think whether a shot is worth printing or posting to your gallery. If not, really, why are you keeping it? I have gone through several whittling down attempts to purge old images and each time have spent a lot of time and become more selective in what is kept. It a file is 2 years old and no one asked for a print or you have not submitted it for publication, stock or it is not hanging on your walls, what possible use of it to you in another 2 years? Keeping it can only serve as a bad example of how you did not quite get it right in the first place. Learn from it the first time it was downloaded and delete it if it is not going to be viewed with interest again. Backing up your keeper files will be longer, more expensive and done less often if you keep too many toss worthy files.
There are lots of backup options. A hard drive is cheap, put a few hundred gig on a HD and store it in a convenient place that is weather and fire proof. Cloud systems are fine for storage of working data that you need access to from various places. It works great, I have my own dedicated server in a secure high end data center in New York and all my current business data is kept there. I can access it via mobile, laptop, tablet, office, anywhere. I can't imagine storing terabytes of image photos, it would take way too long via even the fastest 4G network to access it. Get a VPS, Virtual Private Server if a dedicated is too expensive. A VPS can be had for as little as $20/month and allows much more flexibility and security than any of the cloud services. A high performance dedicated server can be as little as $85/month. You do not need much however, main memory can be much lower than is suitable for your laptop or phone, 256meg will run a non-desktop style OS just fine and be faster for file manipulation than any desktop workstation because most processing power is used for the visual interface, not raw data or file manipulation. My server is a 8 core machine with 1gig of ram and not once has the CPU usage or memory gotten close to 20% capacity while having 28 computers desktop in another country banging on it, plus 500-1000 web site visitors a day and some heavy duty background sales and financial processing, 6 MySQL databases, going on. So for data storage, even the cheapest VPS would be overkill and cheaper than cloud networks.
By a combination of fine tuning your computer system, workflow, keeper criteria, and off line storage, everything dealing with digital photography will be better with your current image files, plus no excuse not to get a D800. Stan St Petersburg Russia