Sat 07-Sep-13 02:27 PM | edited Sat 07-Sep-13 02:43 PM by system13
First off, going Full Frame makes all your glass shorter and widerr. Your 7000 with a 200mm with is an equivelent 300. Your 14mm is an equivelent 21mm. If yor reach was barely enough (soccer or football from the sidelines) youl need longer glass. The moment you add low light (games under lights) you need fast. I went from a 70-200 f/2.8 on a D7000 to a D3X and I'm now shopping and dreaming of a 300mm f/2.8. On the other end my 14-24mm f/2.8 went from wide to WOW that's wide.
Second, my reason for going Pro body is for buffer. I take 1000-1500 pictures of my sons football games. I only keep 50 but those 1000 help make the 50 GREAT. Also Pros are tanks. Less fragile more heft, which between glass and camera make for heavy. I just picked up a Nikon 1 for my wife because she can't hold my camera now.
Third image size. Going from a 16MB sensor to a 24MB sensor has added new problems. On one hand I get more ability to crop without as much image loss, on the other my four year old gaming computer takes noticeably longer to process. I would shudder to think what 32MB would do. If you go D800 think of a new computer to go with it
Fourth focus. Pro cameras per se have better faster focus, especially when they're moving. You need to balance that against newer cameras are almost always better than old cameras in this. I suspect the D610 will be better than my D3X
If Nikon comes out with a D400 I'd recommend that. If fast sports and low light were issues I'd recommend the D4, think of everything else PLUS bragging rights but if right now I'd recommend the new D610 just announced and buy longer fast glass or save for the next greatest. I recommend against the D800 UNLESS landscapes are your primary if not only priority. That's my two cents