Eric Bowles wrote:
"If you shoot wildlife or other subjects that need reach, DX is hard to beat. If you shoot low light subjects, street weddings, studio etc. - FX is probably better a it provides a little more subject isolation and better low light performance. The file size of the proposed D600 is a blessing or a curse - 50% more pixels means 50% larger files. That's longer time to process and more storage required." end of Eric's quote
I own and get to use a D7000 Nikon some. Other times my son and grandson are using that camera. I believe that for the VAST majority of photos and video that camera is equal to the task. I shoot almost exclusively in the field.
Two days ago I climbed to one of the Adirondack High Peaks. I was the only one on the trail, or on the peak with a DSLR camera. I carried the D90 and my 18-105Nikkor and the D300 and the 70-300VR. The view from the summit was AWESOME. Stunning clarity and bright fall foliage! The images with my two cameras was worth frankly an agonizing climb both up and DOWN! I contemplated the days when I actually carried a 8x10 and huge glass to the same summit.
Would the trip with FX Nikon and bigger lens have been more difficult? Answer is Hell Yes! Would the resultant photos have been better? Well that is unresolved. Getting the proper exposures up there is not easy. There was so much light that I had GREAT difficulty even seeing the LCD screens. But I am most happy with the images. A very close friend going up to another peak two days before dropped his FX glass and now the lens barrel is seriously damaged. He is younger and stronger than almost any pro photographer I know who has the time for such a climb. My son is an excellent photographer but can't take the time from his timber frame construction work building homes so people can vacation here. So there are many compromises we ALL have to make concerning photos, our time, and gear.