When you read Thom Hogan's reviews of the D3200/3300/5200/5300 he alludes to the fact that there are very few DX lenses that can really use the full potential of that size of sensor.
What does that mean for the average photographer? Does it mean anything? What lenses are better suited for the 24mp sensor and why?
As the pixel count goes up and the pixels get smaller you can resolve finer detail. That includes real detail in the scene, but it also includes lens aberrations and defects: colour fringing, field curvature, tiny inaccuracies of assembly so the lens elements are not perfectly straight and so on. A colour fringe, eg, that occupies 1 pixel on an 8MP sensor occupies nearly two pixels on a 24MP sensor so when you look at 100% it is more obvious.
If you only use photographs for email and web you will never see the difference. If you crop a lot or print large you will see the difference if you look carefully.
In practical terms it means paying for the 16-85 DX or the 18-35 FX rather than the 18-xxx DX if you want a mid-range zoom, and paying for the 70-300 FX or the 70-200 f/4 FX instead of the 55-200 DX or 55-300 DX as a telephoto zoom (or, better, IMO, using FX primes - Voigtlander 20 f/3.5 and 35 f/1.8 DX, plus 50 f/1.8 and/or 85 f/1.8).
The only really difficult place is very wide-angle, where DX users have no choice except the 10-24 or 12-24 DX (or a superb but buttock-clenchingly expensive Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 or Zeiss 15mm f/2.8). Thom's opinion is that the 10-24 and 12-24 are among the lenses which are not quite good enough on the 24MP sensors, and that means you have no reasonably priced option. My opinion is that in this case he is a bit too picky about what is "good enough" - meaning pickier than me, of course - but YMMV.
