I like DX and do miss the wide angle potential of FX, I would like something like a 8 - 14 mm DX lens if possible.

Something between a Olympus 7 - 14 mm and a Nikon 14 -24, but the cost would properly be a bit a problem

Also I hope for a smaller FX body

Pete

DX isn't going anywhere. The only ones who really want or need FX as mentioned before are the wide angle users and perhaps some pros. The average person, who make up most of the market don't care. The wildlife shooter will always want the extra reach of DX. Nikon is aware of this and this is why they make DX bodies that are 90% the same as their FX ones now (ie. D3 and D300).

Even for wide angle work, I can put a polarizing filter on my 10-24 or graduated ND for landscapes. You sure can't do that with the 14-24. Besides between 14mm and 15mm, angle of view is awfully close. Now I do understand the physics and know FX is always going to be superior in this context (as is the 14-24 optically), its just a matter of how much better.

Now if Nikon puts out the rumored ultra-wide 10-18/4.0 for FX (I don't believe it), I'd line up for a D700. Otherwise, I find the 10-24 works for me on a D90.

I'm also a wide junkie, loved the 16mm Zeiss Hologon for my Contax G2. The most expensive lens I've ever bought. Also one of the coolest. I wish someone would make a digital full frame body for Contax G2 lenses. One of the best suites of lenses ever made.

Don't worry, DX is here to stay.

Some people are crazy about wide angle, these will go FX asap.

However, for the telephoto end, DX is much better.

^^

And everything he said.

Indeed. The trend, since the beginning of film, has always been toward smaller formats. In fact, 35mm exists because some film maker (I forget who) found that medium format was to cumbersome to carry around all day. When digital came along, the trend continued. Going from FX (35mm film) to DX. In the point in shoots, you get a smaller sensor still. And in your cell phone, an even tinier one.

The only thing keeping FX alive is the fact that we are hitting the limits of what physics will let us do with DX (although its still getting better, so who knows.

DX won't go anywhere, even in the Pro's bag. By owning a quality DX body you make your existing lenses do something they wouldn't otherwise do. That's worth a lot of money if you have a lot of lenses. Besides, why drop DX when they can sell you both?

That said, DX has never been able to go as wide as FX. Not even the 10mm can match the wideness of nikon's 14-24 zoom.

Unfortunately DX sensors aren't placed in markedly smaller bodies than FX sensors, especially in cases such as the D90, D300/S, and such. Give me a body with the physical size of an old Pentax MX or the like and put a DX sized sensor in it with a good split image focusing screen, make it work 100% with manual focus lenses and AF-S (omit the internal motor screw AF to keep costs down, as much as I use older AF lenses, I'd rather trade the screw for complete manual focus lens integration), and then we'll talk.

The D40/D60/D3000 is small, but not small enough, they're too beefy, but not beefy enough, an awkward inbetween of a compact slr and a full size one. The D300 has the optimal grip for me when it comes to digital, but retro style "flat" bodied SLR's are just fine too, I shoot with them regularly all day.

Long life for DX. There seems a running thread in discussions that any serious photographer will eventually shun DX and adopt FX cameras and lenses.

I find this equivalent historically to telling 35mm photographers that if they wanted to produce "professional" work, they had to adopt medium format or larger. And people made that argument years ago. There existed a film size envy kind of thing. Never mind that the vast majority of photographers, both professional and amateur adopted the handier and good-enough visual quality of 35mm.

35mm allowed photographers to do things and obtain images otherwise impossible to capture.

It seems to me that DX has that same future for many photographers. At 12.3 megapixels in my D90, I have not yet found myself looking at my photos as shown on my 24 inch screen and felt they lacked anything. Perhaps if I was looking for reproductions of enormous size I might feel different.

When I was shooting with Nikon F3HP cameras or Contax G2 cameras, I never wanted to trade them for medium format for larger negatives. Why would I want to do the same thing with my handy DX equipment and adopt FX. I can't see that it would do anything but weigh me down and take my money. I already have to compress files to small sizes to send and share them, what would I want with more megapixels?

Buying FX for better low light performance is another valid, but overused story. The performance of the D90 is excellent in low light, how much do I need to spend/carry for perhaps one more stop? If you are a photojournalist or paparazzi, get FX and F2.0, for most people this is a waste.