well first thoughts now are, WOW expensive!
I knew it was going to be more, but £1995! nearly £700 more then the US!
Which really makes this decision harder.
To be realistic, FX - DX neither format is better except for on the extreme uses by any measurement. I doubt there will be much of a difference in sensor performance of the D3200 vs the D600. More headroom (1-1.5 stops) on the high side of ISO.
The only real reason for the OP (SEB) to move is if 1) need the extra resolution to crop, 2) Utilize better video 3) Shoots continuously above ISO 1000. Outside of that, there really is no real difference from the leaked specs.
It used to be that wide angle lenses were unavailable for FX, but that has since been solved. Still, DX wide lenses are much less expensive than Full Frame wide lenses.
I was thinking £600 for a Dx wide lens to give me 15-300 total equivalent focal length coverage, or £400 more for 24-200 coverage, but with higher resolution, better noise handling and the 'correct' focal lengths and aperture depth of fields; hoping that 24 would be wide enough. (would for weddings, just missing ultra wide landscape sunsets/starscapes)
Really not sure i can justify £1400 more for the body, and reduce my focal length coverage, even with the advantages of FX. (also when i did want to go wide, it would cost me!)
I have no NEED for wide for the rest of this year (just have the money now, and the frustration from all summer shooting 36mm!) so i think i'm just gonna hold tight, and see if the price drops.
Thanks for all your time and effort, appreciated.