Alright, well, first of all, I'd like to apologize to everyone about posting something like this... But I couldn't really find an answer to this, unless I haven't been digging deep enough...
I'd like to get a new body as well as lens, upgrading from a d80 with 35mm f/1.8. I'm planning to do a lot of concert photography in Korea for the rest of the year before I start school in Seoul National University and it will be low lit. Right now I have a budget of $6000. I've been looking through many sites and what not to see what I should get for the best deal.
I know D700 full frame will be a hand from God helping me take shots at concerts and it was my initial decision. Ofcourse I need a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, and was planning to get a prime 50mm f/1.4G.
However, I started thinking I should just get a D90 and looked at prices but now they dont do rebates with 70-200mm for D90s. So I looked into D300S and voila, 70-200mm + 24-70mm f/2.8 for about the same price as the above D700 shopping cart. I calculated and Getting D90 with the above two lenses are almost the same price, which means I should just get the D300S anyways.
So my main question is: Is the D700 Full frame really worth more than getting a 24-700mm f/2.8 with a D300S for a body instead? Or is the full frame a MUST for low lit concert photography?
Also, other than concerts, I'm going to be shooting still life and everyday shots like touring places.
Andlast thing, if the D700 is the decision, is the FX sensor body worth the weait? (Going to miss some concerts)
If this topic seems unacceptable, I apologize and please take this down, mods. :)