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.