So how do you explain the COOLPIX S1000PJ and S1100PJ cameras? Where is Canon's camera with a built-in projector? A Pro DX camera wouldn't be that out of place against the competition now would it?
Coolpix and the like are testing grounds and designs are more geared towards the "in the moment consumer." I don't see a relationship other than a name badge.
Interesting that you guys wouldn't pay $3000 for a "$5000 D2X" camera in today's market. Apparently the perception that DX is an "amateur" format seems to have stuck with a lot of you.
Simply, No most would not. It is not the stigma of a DX format but the reality that technology has surpassed to such a large degree that it has no longer become a sustainable option. (Two exceptions; Pro DX for sports/wildlife or If video capabilities somehow increase 10-fold that would create a whole new class of system.)
So what if the "20+" megapixel pro DX camera turns out to be Nikon's new EVIL rangefinder-ish camera instead of a "D400"? What if Nikon gives us a FX "D800" at $3000 and then a pro EVIL camera at $1800-ish? Where would that leave the "D400"? Would it sell for $2400 body only?
I think the EVIL system is outside the DSLR line-up and is in it's own class. Intermingling the two overly credits the Micro 4/3, NEX, and other ILCs than they deserve. If you have used any of them, you know they are barely in the same class in performance wise (not image quality) as an entry level DSLR. Nothing different than how other view a Leica.
Nikon has rarely came out of nowhere on its DSLRs and has always been steady. They have focused on AF, metering, Flash CLS performance and image quality.
To me there is nothing wrong with this.
Nikon as usually been second to last to the table on most DSLR releases per marketing specs. While others are eating with dull knives, pick-less forks and shallow spoons, and even if Nikon is a little late, I would rather eat with them any day.