Quandary - DX or FX?

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:10:59 +0000 (UTC), Nige Danton
wrote:

I'm in a bit of a quandary. I've currently got a D7000 and an 18-105 lens.
Ive recently (this year) switched back to SLR's after a decade of using
digital point and shoot. I'm certainly pleased with D7000, but am finding
the 18-105 to be a bit too slow in low light (indoors without flash) and am
thinking of buying a faster lens.

Also I've found some of the (cropped) images to be not quite as sharp as I
would like. This mainly seems to occur in low light shots.

I'm also keen to try some macro photography too, and have been thinking
about a macro lens, perhaps extension tubes or even a bellows.

My quandary is this. I'm not (at all) sure that I'm satisfied with a DX
format and really don't want to buy new lenses and accessories and then
find myself needing to re-buy them if/when I buy an FX body.

So, what do you think. Should I spend more time and practise getting the
best out of my D7000 or switch to an FX body now? Cost is not particular
issue - that said I don't want to be wasteful.

Appreciate any feedback.

If you want low light, low noise - high ISO - you want FX.

Don't forget, you can still shoot DX on your FX camera, with Nikon you can
choose whatever you want with whatever lens you have, no need to toss anything,
and a 24m or 36m FX will give you pretty good DX when you want it. Also you can
choose a square format if you want.

DOF is enhanced also with FX, and you don't lose your wide angle lenses!

A few shots with a 16mm lens on my D600 proved I made a good choice.

Cost is no issue? - FX it is!