[font color=\'#000000\']Obviously, the Nikon announcement raises some interesting questions, since, as Michael notes, it implies a divergence between the format of the current D series cameras and a full frame format. As the owner of a D100, two Nikon film SLRs and a kit of Nikon glass, I would be concerned if I felt that Nikon was abandoning full frame as a viable format. I'm very much looking forward to the time when Nikon has a direct competitor to the Canon 1DS offering medium format type quality in a 35mm package, something that most of the commentators continue to say will be soon announced.
Michael's essay, however, misses several possible explanations for the DX series of lenses, ones which make more sense from a marketing standpoint.
First, if you spend much time following the posts at a digital photography website like dpreview, you will find that a huge number of digital photography enthusiasts who are buying D100s (and D60s) do not come from a 35mm film heritage. They are not like the typical Luminous Lnadscape reader and they don't have a closet full of high priced Nikon glass--they have a box of old digicams. Dpreview seems to have hundreds of posts along the lines of "I just ordered a D100 and now I need a lens; what should I buy." These customers would presumably be very happy with lenses that fit only D series cameras.
Second, Thom Hogan (who makes much of his living writing about Nikon digital SLRs) notes that the DX series of lenses are believed to have a higher level of optical resolution than current full frame Nikon glass--a level that would be far higher than the resolution of any of the current less-than-full-frame sensors. This implies that Nikon's product development pipeline also includes some higher resolution cameras, using the smaller format. For many users, including many pros, resolutions somewhere in the 6-10 MP range may be all they ever need. If that is available in a small, lightweight package and it provides all the quality you need, why buy a big honker like a 1Ds and why carry around all that big glass?
Third, even those of us who want maximum image quality with the ability to make large, highly detailed prints also often want a smaller lightweight package for travel, street photography, etc. Michael said as much in the most recent Video Journal when he described taking the battery pack off his D60, something I sometimes do with my D100. I already have one lens that is my all-in one travel lens, a 28-105mm that I use when I want to travel light but that I almost never use when I have my full kit available. I can certainly see the attraction of a high quality, lightweight all-in-one lens designed just for digital and I wouldn't mind buying one as a travel lens even if it didn't work with my other cameras.
Overall, it is a new marketing concept and it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the new digital world.
Finally, I was rather disappointed to see Michael's essay--not because it isn't a worthwhile topic for discussion, but because it seemed rather odd for a site that covers almost exclusively Canon products suddenly to come out with a piece of Nikon bashing. If Luminous Landscape had been covering both Nikon and Canon product announcements right along, the essay might make sense, but for a 99 percent Canon site to come out with "whither Nikon" feels a bit like something written by Canon's PR department. My feeling on the Nikon vs Canon wars is that we are all better served by having multiple strong competitors. Most of us have to be content living with the strengths and weaknesses of one system or the other, so all the discussions about who is the best are both boring and useless. Fortunately, Luminous Landscape has been largely free of Nikon vs Canon nonsense; I hope it will stay that way.[/font]