Why did Nikon double down on FX when the trend is toward smaller cameras and lenses?

I continue to notice more and more DSLR's in the hands "average" folks - especially at family destinations and events, like Disneyworld, school and dance recitals, amateur sporting events, vacations, etc.

Yes, most of these cameras are DX - but I definitely see some "enthusiasts" lugging around FX bodies. They're sweating a lot more than me and don't seem to be enjoying the trip as much as trying to "shoot" it.

I gave this up a long time ago and take a m4/3 and compact on my trips. I can move faster, "participate" with my family to a greater degree, and get better candids due to the greater ease of shooting with a small rig and high success rate/camera placement options that face detection live view shooting deliver with a well-designed compact or m4/3 kit as opposed to a D700 with 24-70.

Any m4/3 body with the 7-14mm Lumix can deliver superb land and city scapes. Toss in a fast prime like the 20mm f/1.7, or one of the fast 45's, and you're good to go.

I have to admit that a DX body with a kit zoom or wide prime is actually fairly small - not too much bigger than a m4/3 body with kit, and not that bulky.

I keep my D700 and fast glass for around the house and local shoots where I'm not going to be constrained by weight and bulk.

I think Nikon is playing to its strengths with its recent FX body releases - they've got an excellent and diverse line up of FX bodies.