>>Some sort of "entry level" FX body makes a lot more sense than having a higher end prosumer DX body.
> Why? I am just trying to wrap my head around this.
LOL because you are trying to make sense of a technical issue, and this is about marketing and perception. If the problem at hand is strictly to make the best possible cameras for purpose, I probably agree with you, although I haven't through through every point. But an entry priced FX at say, the D300 price point or lower, will swallow up all of those consumers who "know" that FX is the answer, because it's "full frame." If Nikon offers an FX D600 at $1500-$1800, it's going to outsell the D300 by a wide margin unless it is crippled in some way. And Nikon generally does not do that, as you have pointed out in the past.
> Entry level FX will FORCE Nikon to produce "entry level" glass, because NO ONE who is getting into entry level FX is going to want to pay for the pro glass that really makes FX shine.
And they appear to be doing just that, if the recent patent for a 24-70/f3.5-5.6 FX is any indication. If they can do the 18-55 AFS VR as well as they have, I have no doubt that they can do a similar job on the upgrade of the 28-105 or whatever. Again, the bar is low here. People will buy it because it's full frame, and the results have to look good. And it seems to me anyway that most D300 owners aren't shooting kit lenses anyway. They're shooting 17-55's, 24-70's, 70-200's and 14-24's - mostly FX, pro level glass.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!