I realize this may be a dumb question, but, at first, I hesitated about the D600 because it is FX - then I started reviewing my lenses and realized that some are DX, but others - are FX, which I have been happily using with my undoubtedly DX D7000, so the leap to FX is not as much of a leap as I had assumed.
So, here's the dumb question part: I have read that a Nikon lens is DX, if the title says "DX" but if not, it is FX. If true, my hesitation was unfounded, as I seem to have more than a few FX lenses in my stable already.
So, my point is - if hesitating about taking the FX plunge with a D600, shouldn't one take a close look at all their equipment first, and perhaps realize that they won't have to buy all new FX lenses because they likely have some, or more than some, already?
I jumped to pre-order the D600 because, though I have decades of amateur experience (not a pro; never will be!) and enthusiasm, I feel the D800 is just beyond my needs - the D4 and D800, seeming like buying a Ferrari to drive a few miles back and forth to work for me - whereas, the D600 seems to be right in my wheelhouse now that I have built my confidence with my D7000. I'm hoping the D600 will be as good as it looks, and I hope it would become my backup/DX camera for getting longer range from my longer tele's.