Is the FX revolution fizzling?

WD wrote:

Who among those in these forums make their livelihood form photography? Who prints regularly greater than 20x30? Or 13x19? Who among us has the financial ability to purchase a D800, and 5 premium FX lenses? A minority, I'm sure. So, there is a D600 for those with less to invest but the desire for the "finest image quality"...whether they really need it or not. In that choice they give up other build and performance aspects evident in a DX camera such as the D300.

Undeniably, the new FX cameras are top-tier today in image quality, although one must crop heavily or print huge to readily see that better quality. It's easy to see the difference between a D600/D800 straight out of camera compared to my old D300. But with careful processing, one would have to view the identical photo side-by-side at 11x14 to pick the winner. The D300 isn't crap just because the new FX cameras are here. It's the photograph, not the number or pixels, that matters.

The sensor in a D300 was the first "pro" CMOS sensor, if my memory serves me. It's ancient by digital standards. Stick the newest technology in a slightly smaller, lighter D400 with all the "pro" goodies and it will sell like the D300 did when it was introduced. Remember that?