I have used a D7000 for 2 years now and about 2 weeks ago my camera and myself went swimming when a rock gave way. The lens was shot my camera seemed to of survived so far. While I was waiting for my 7000 to dry out, I started looking for a new camera right away. Even though I put the camera and the lens in rice to dry out, I had no hope for them, considering the amount of water that pored out of the lens. I invested in a D600 because of it being a full frame. Then I started hearing of the dust problem and have read reviews saying that the 7000 is every bit as good as the 600 and that you shouldn't waste your money. So when my camera seemed to be o.k. I started considering a good lens instead. I had a salesman at a very reputable camera shop, who has sold Nikons for years, tell me that if I would put a full frame lens on my Dx camera it would perform as well as the 600 with the full frame lens. This doesn't make sense to me. My thinking is that the 7000 was made to shoot Dx and it's sensor was made to preform with the Dx lens, so I should get the best results or at least the same results, when comparing the two with an equal lens on each camera Dx on the 7000 and full frame on the 600. Please tell me if I am wrong. Because If by putting a full frame lens on the Dx camera I would be getting the same results as the 600 then I would be inclined to opt for a good full frame lens and keep my 7000 body for as long as it holds out. Can anybody help me clear this up? I am not a professional, I would consider my self a semi-amateur who is still learning but I am very picky about the quality of my pictures.