>When FX becomes the de facto standard I think >that may be the time to make the switch. Until then the D7000 >I think might just be as good as it gets!
Probably wandering from the topic but I must point out that FX was the de facto standard for a long time. We called it 35mm then. DX primarily came about in the fledgling digital age as an achievable sensor size. And if it delivers what you need there is no optical imperitive to go to larger sensors. While I still have lenses from 35mm film days and they work fine on my D7000, they rarely travel as the DX lenses are lighter.
Consider some examples from recent history.
When Philips introduced the compact cassette at a miserable 1/8" width and only 1-7/8 inches per second speed, the industry sniggered. Philips reasoned that tape magnetics would improve over time and they were right. Open real tape machines using wide tape and high speeds all but vanished. Yes, you could still buy such machines. Yes, they still deliver superb audio. And they cost. With improving magnetics the compact cassette did all the majority of the day needed.
Likewise, digital image sensors continue to improve. On the small DX format they deliver easily what most need. FX and larger formats will be available for those well-healed souls wanting more. But with further sensor improvements it may well be that the masses move to even smaller sensor sizes. Nikon's current 24 mega-pixel FX sensors use the same photo-site pitch as their 16 mega-pixel ones and only represent refined manufacturing techniques that allow a reject rate low enough to make them viable as products. Currently, they are primarily limited by photo-site noise. A breakthrough in this area would see smaller photo-sites become viable. Then the question is what to do. Build for higher mega-pixels or build a more compact sensor? My tip is the latter - until limited by lens technology. Yes, it's an ever-changing world of trade-offs where sales are the arbiter. But in terms of what the majority need (Shakespeare call them the "fool multitude"?) I suspect sub-DX has a bigger digital future than FX and larger. Even in the film era the improvements in film saw massive growth in sub-35mm formats like half-frame and 110. Yes, the same film improvements improved the large formats too. But market growth went for smaller, lighter and cheaper.
The bottom line? If FX is where you want to be, count the costs and go for it. Don't wait for it to become the de facto standard. That likely will not happen. But it is available.