With all the hype surrounding full frame (Nikon calls its FF format FX), I was contemplating jumping to FX. But after evaluating my lens collection and my shooting style, I decided that FX was just not for me, yet.
Lenswise, I have a few DX format lenses, namely the 17-55 2.8, 18-200 VR, 10-20 HSM. The 18-200 VR and 10-20 HSM have always been my pair of travel lenses, with the 18-200 stuck onto my d40 and the 10-20 coupled onto my d80. Changing to FX, means I would have to buy the excellent, bloody expensive, not to mention can't screw on a filter, Nikon 14-24. Also, I would loose the flexibility of the 18-200 VR, not forgetting the weight penalty, with using the D700 and FX lenses.
Next argument, I would hate to loose the telephoto end due to the 1.5x crop of the DX sensor if I were to jump to FX. Currently, I'm getting an effective focal length of 600mm with my nikon 80-400VR. This allows me to do birding and wildlife photography. In FX, 400mm would remain 400mm.
Some might argue that FX goes wider than DX. True, but it is only 1mm comparing my 10-20 (effective focal length 15mm-30mm FX) to the 14-24mm.
Lastly, I don't do too much low-light photography. I fully agree that FX shines at high ISOs. This would be very useful for event photography, concerts, places where flash photography is banned, etc,etc.
I would foresee myself jumping to FX if d700 costs the same as the d300, or if I'm more seriously involved in low-light/event photography.
Hope this short post would help you decide if jumping to FX would be worth it.
