http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1490
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=415
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=2527

My friend uses 2 modern Nikkor pro zooms to cover 24-200. He's a big fan of bokeh so if it was DOF, I'm sure he would have been more specific on what appealed to him. think there's truth in all of what you guys are saying.

This is an interesting subject for me because I've almost convinced myself that I'll not succumb to the pressures of wanting an FX camera since I'm not a professional photographer and can't really justify the extra cost. Additionally, since shooting f/1.8 and Nano-coated f/2.8 glass on my D7000 I feel that I'm getting excellent image quality - with that somewhat 3D look. Just like you, Man from Mandrem, I'm happy with my results.

I've have read that the bigger FX sensor essentially pulls in more light and more data thus producing a better image with less noise but whether or not it's significant enough for me to go FX is questionable for me. On Flickr I've seen shots taken with high end glass on a D90 that blow me away (in line with PBPM's comment) so for now -for me- the closest one might get to that FX look is goood glass.

The Man From Mandrem said:
THe best word for it from my untrained mouth is signal to noise....

I think you are right . In the days of film, a good big'n (5x4 ) was allways be better than a good little'n. (35mm)
The bigger sensor produces more signal, and no amount of post-processing of a samller image can match it

There are some differences, primarily when it comes to depth of field, which is narrower on FX. Also people with FX cameras tent to use high end glass, which can also make a difference. A good photographer can take great images with DX or FX, and being skilled at post processing also helps.

The Man From Mandrem said:
I have a friend who owns D300 and D7000. He rented D700 and was raving about some unquantifiable attribute.
I read Chase Jarvis's impressions of D7000 when it was released and he made some comments about the forms of noise observed at D7000 and D700 and qualified his praise of D7000. I have D7000 and like it alot (wife likes what it did for my photography vs. 35mm) but if I review images online from D700 especially high contrast images with black background and skin tones, I really do wonder how they get such amazing images... I know little about post... Anyone understand what is D700 doing and any post-processing that allows modern DX to give a similar clean, 3dimensional uncluttered view. THe best word for it from my untrained mouth is signal to noise....

I have a friend who owns D300 and D7000. He rented D700 and was raving about some unquantifiable attribute.
I read Chase Jarvis's impressions of D7000 when it was released and me made some comments about the forms of noise observed at D7000 and D700 and qualified his praise of D700. I have D7000 and like it alot (wife likes what it did for my photography vs. 35mm) but if I review images online from D700 especially high contrast images with black background and skin tones, I really do wonder how they get such amazing images... I know little about post... Anyone understand what is D700 doing and any post-processing that allows modern DX to give a similar clean, 3dimensional uncluttered view. THe best word for it from my untrained mouth is signal to noise....