>The reason why I switched from DX to FX about four years ago >was the extraordinary Nikon 14-24/2.8 lens...
That's a good argument for going to FX, Tristan, and if that applies to George, he might want a D700 and 14-24. I'm using a Sigma 10-20 as a wide angle on my D300, and I know it's not as good as the 14-24.
On the other hand, my 10-20 isn't as big and heavy as the 14-24 either, so George would have to be willing to carry it around for it to really be a benefit. I know lots of people are, but I also read on Nikonians of the people who trade their 14-24 for the 16-35, not because the 16-35 is a better lens, but because it is more portable. And the DX wide angles are more portable still. If you want to carry it, I see the benefit.
Speaking for myself, I have an 80-200 f2.8 that I rarely carry, unless I need f2.8, because it's a load. I'll take my 18-200, or 55-300 instead. That's probably giving up some image quality, but in exchange for a set-up that I'm more likely to have with me rather than leaving it at home.
I completely buy into your argument, Tristan, for some people. But DX has pretty stunning image quality, even if it doesn't always quite come up to FX, and the trade-off is the size, weight, and expense of an FX kit. For lots of people, the "smaller and lighter" is the better choice, even setting aside the cost. That's what I'd think George would need to consider.