Glad to hear you're loving your D7000 Jessi. Post some pics gurl ;^)

Poo Party - I am not sure where you are, but here in a medium sized city in the US midwest, I was only able to get $300 for my D60. However, I upgraded to the D7000 and have been 100% blown away by the high ISO low light performance. And my expectations were even high.

Segura, you're mixing apples and oranges with the "But the D700 will let you shoot at twice the D7000, at ISO 2303." comparison.
The ISO numbers you quote are the point where the per pixel noise levels cross DXO's "acceptable" Signal to Noise ratio (See Thom Hogan for an argument against their arbitrary point.)
The D700 has a much lower noise level per pixel but a nearly identical noise level per picture height (as reflected in the DXO Mark scores.)

If one are concerned with pixels, by all means the latter numbers you quote are the relevant ones. If one is concerned with the whole picture, the first ones are the more relevant.

Segura makes some very valid points. Yet, in all the shooting I have taken so far as and photo enthusiast, high ISO (ie shooting anything between 1200-2000) is so small that it is pointless to consider a camera around. What made my chose to go with the new D7000 over a FX camera was cost value, features, accessories and lens options. For output: consider what your intentions are with the final photo, be it hard print or digital. What size will the output be?

There are plenty of good knowledgeable camera experts that have given their feedback on the D7000 breaking the "glass ceiling" of the DX cameras vs. the full line of FX's. And those that are honest can not deny that.

Those photos that Segura has posted on this site...I can obtain the same result with my DX 35mm 1.8, as well as, my 50mm 1.4G on my D7000. Period!

One thing for sure...you will be happy with either unit...so just do it. The question is: How much capital you are willing to part with?

I am not sure what the guys that think the D7000 is even with the D700 are smoking. This is certainly not true. Anyone who thinks that they are even close has not probably never taken a picture with an FX camera. Keep in mind the surface area of the FX sensor is over 200% larger than a DX.

Let's look at the DXO Mark scores for the sensors.
D60 - 65
D90 - 73
D7000 - 80
D700 - 80
Wow, OMFG, looks like the D7000 sensor is tied even with the D700! They are the same!

Okay time to get real. The score is based on other factors, including resolution, so the D7000 score is higher because the MP resolution is higher. You don't have a way to tell the real difference between a score of 65 to 80. What does it mean?

Now let's look at the DXO Mark Low Light ISO scores for the same cameras
D60 - 562 ISO
D90 - 977 ISO
D7000 - 1167 ISO
D700 - 2303 ISO
D3S - 3253 ISO
So what this tells us that shooting your D60 at ISO 562 has the same noise, grain, as a D90 at ISO 977 or a D7000 at ISO 1167 ISO. But the D700 will let you shoot at twice the D7000, at ISO 2303. So the difference between a D60 to a D700 is 2 stops in this aspect, which is the equivalent of 4 times as much sensitivity.

If low light ISO is what you are looking for, then you have no other option than to go to FX. Here is a link to a picture I took tonight at ISO 2000 on a D700
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31853200&l=3e025159be&id=1031464582

I went from a D60 to a D90 when it was released. 8 months later I upgraded to a D700. I highly recommend picking up a used D90. There are lots of in camera features that you need to learn. Going from a D60 to a D700 is a big step, and I think you may not be ready to take advantage of all the features of the D700 if you are at a D60 level. Pick one up used and go from there. Good luck

Im happy with my D90/Fx combo but I plan to go Fx asap (when possible)

poo - if You planning to go FX in near (1-2years) future go for FX lenses, if not stay with dx. In Your case I would go for an upgrade to d90 and for the all money left I would got me some nice lens, doesn't matter either it's FX or DX

heartyfisher said:
One of the big advantages to go FX is the High ISO but that seems to have been negated by the new D7000 having similar numbers to the D700.

hearty - still d700 is app 2-3stops behind d3s :)

Fx lenses bro....

Why not get a good lens in the range that you shoot at and keep the D60 until the D700 upgrade comes out to make up you mind. I had a D60 for a long time and used lots of Fx glass on it. Just because it doesn't have AF-S doesn't mean it wont work, just focus it yourself.

I'd say to try to avoid spending your money twice. If you know for sure that for are going for full frame (and you're doing so for the right reasons), then I don't think there's much of a point in buying more DX lenses that you'll only use for a couple of years. You might as well just wait until you can get what you really want.

Personally i have decided to Stay with DX all the way. I get 90% of the same quality in a lighter smaller package. Plus that means i can spend much more money on different lenses, or other things.

I figure if i ever become rich enough to afford a $2500 body, i'll be able to afford $1000-$2000 lenses as well.

Consider a tokina 11-16, its half the size and weight of its equivalent FX model, and a third the price.

For wide angle I like the 17-35 2.8. I have it one a d80 right now but have seen it on a d700 and it is wide enough for me. I really love the versitility of this lens.

I don't think you would be able to get $400 for the D60.

I would say go for the D7000.

Ok you can have the D700 8-)

I dont think the D300/s replacement will have a different sensor from the D7000. Its almost certainly will have the same sensor as the D7000. If nikon doesn't terminate that line altogether!

Although the numbers from the D7000 are the same as the D700 so are the numbers from the Nex but the D700 high ISO performance blows the nex out of the water. So we will need real samples and test results before we can conclude that the D7000 sensor really has the same High ISO performance as the D700. If High ISO and DOF are really important to you then I think the D700 wont disappoint you. Find out what your FAV FOV is and get the one FF lens that covers that and you are off! you only really need one prime on your D700 to cover 75% of your shots. the D60 with your current set up can handle the other 20% ( the 5% is for the next dream lense !! LOL)

Oh PS welcome !

What im really longing after is the high ISO and DOF capability of an FX body. An FX body has a similar DOF at 2.8 as DX at 1.8.
I completely agree about the d7000 seeming to break barriers in the ISO category, but thats whats also driving me to wait and see what comes of the d300s replacement, as-well as the d700... for all we know, the things that made FX better, may now be compensated for in DX. Id just rather wait and see... but the d60 is really cramping my style.

As for AF-S lenses... thats cuts my choice down to 25 out of the 56 fx lenses nikon offers. and thats the 25 most expensive out of the 56.

?? Of course you can use fx lenses on your D60 ?? they just got to be afs.. and there is a whole bunch of those. Unless you have a good reason to go F (ie you know why you need fx) staying with DX is a cheaper option. One of the big advantages to go FX is the High ISO but that seems to have been negated by the new D7000 having similar numbers to the D700.
so if you can tell me why you need FX I will let you have the D700 ;-)

"Lenses take the pics… a good dx body with great fx lenses is better than a great dx body with good dx lenses… but that’s debatable. " LOL you are not sure? :-) The best choice for you really depends on what your main interests in photography are and you have not told us that.

currently im driving a 2008 nikon d60. its got about 15k miles on it, and im ready to upgrade. Ideally id go full frame, but id rather wait and see the d700 replacement, or just get a used d700 at dirt cheap prices when the new one comes out.

My dilemma:
The d60 doesn’t have an internal focus motor. Therefore, no FX lenses for me.

So, should I buy a cheap used d90, assuming I can sell my d60 for $400, and get a D90 for 600ish, which makes it only a $200 dollar upgrade, with a boat load of cash left over to get some FX primes, such as a 20mm, 50mm, 85, and maybe a long zoom of some sort, all 2.8’s and lower of course. Then, when Im ready for fx in a year or so, or 6 months depending on the D700 replacement, ill already have a nice bit of lenses. The only lens that im not really sure if itll work all that well on fx is my wide angle dx lens, a tokina 11-16. so, I may take a hit on that one.

Or should I just get a d7000 and commit to dx with its cheaper dx lenses?

Lenses take the pics… a good dx body with great fx lenses is better than a great dx body with good dx lenses… but that’s debatable.

All this in preparation for my eventual entrance into fx. If I go with d7000, fx will have to wait a good number of years. With the d7000 being as stunning as it is, I cant wait for the fx replacements, or even the d300s replacement for that matter.
Basically, I don’t think I ready to pounce on the d7000. I think Nikon has allot more goodies in store for the coming 6-12 months.