>Again he is asking about the D700 vs a D7000 and FX vs DX, I know >that we don't have data for the D7000 but at $1,200 I have to >assume that it is not in the class of a D3 or even a D700 for >that fact?
We don't know yet. But from past experience everything moves on - the "consumer" D90 considerably exceeded the sensor performance of the "pro" D1, even though the D90 had a much denser sensor and was cheaper
>The photosites on the D7000 have to be tiny (compared to the >D700) because they are cramming 16.2 million on a sensor >(again) that is 3 three times SMALLER.
It's 2.3 times smaller in area, and while what you say is true, the D7000 sensor is a couple of generations newer than the one in the D300, and the firmware has also been improved. It comes back to the point about making sure we are comparing like with like.
To reiterate - FX is not automatically better - it depends on the technology used and the pixel density.