Nikon responds- "rapid deterioration in the market occurred and fiercer competition"

Speak for yourself only please, not for me.  I shoot a lot of amateur soccer for the players, parents and schools and I'm well aware of the limitations of my D300.  A D90 would not be able to do what I do at all.  Neither a D600 nor a D800 would do better either except when it's really dark and even then, they don't do very well either (I've rented a D800).

Where is this FX camera that is good for shooting action?

Why is it you assume that a step up from D5200/D7000 has to be FX?  What if they don't want to plunk down thousands more on FX lenses to give them the same reach on the large sports field?  What if they don't want to abandon all the lenses they already have?  If you were shooting a D300 and 70-300 today and using all of the reach of the 70-300, what would you have to spend to get equivalent fps and AF and reach in one of Nikon's current FX offerings?

The answer is that you'd have to buy a D4 and either a 200-400 or live with the imperfections in  the 80-400 and neither of those would actually get you the same reach you had with the 70-300 on DX.  So, we're talking about having to spend $7500-$11,000 just to move what you had to FX.  This is exactly why we have high-end DX.  It helps solve some of these problems for a lot, lot less money and it's compatible with the huge base of DX lenses already owned by Nikon customers.  I'm not saying that DX is better than FX in an absolute sense with no regard for money, size or weight.  But, I am saying that there's a significant case for continuing with high-end DX because there's a giant money, size and performance gap between mirrorless and FX and DX fills it nicely.

I don't have market numbers and it sounds like you don't either so I won't debate the size of the opportunity with you (I have my opinion, you have yours).  I do know that high quality action photography is one of the ways that dSLRs can defend some of their territory from mirrorless because the higher-end dSLR AF systems are way, way ahead of mirrorless, especially in low light and lower contrast and when shooting at max fps.  I'm surprised that Nikon is not choosing to use that weapon to bolster dSLR sales.

It's just intuition, but I suspect that a $1500 D400 would far outsell the D800.  It would be awesome upgrade for all the people still shooting older DX bodies without having to redo their entire lens inventory and there are so many more people who can afford a $1500 camera and own DX lenses than can afford a $3000 FX camera and new lenses for it.

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com