>Just take a picture with FX and DX camera from the same >generation and look at them. Or maybe you shouldn't because it >may cost you a lot of money... Comparing specs on paper and >convincing yourself that DX is good and FX is better only at >high ISO will be cheaper. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. >I traveled with a D90 this summer and tried to convince myself >that it's good enough, until I took up the D700 again and >looked at the images it makes.
We will agree to disagree. A number of well known pros, including Bjorn Rorslett who spend tons of money on camera equipment (both DX and FX) and enjoy a good reputation for being very conscious about image quality generally agree with what I said:
I have also read an article by Thom Hogan along these lines as well.
Edit: found the Hogan article where he states: "Currently, the D3 is my "most of the time" camera and the D300 gets used when I need to go light or need more pixel density (wildlife shooting, mainly)."
Pixel peeping and all, DX image quality (presuming low ISO shooting conditions) is arguably superior. I have compared them, that is my opinion. Spending more money won't convince me that my image quality is better.