So, you're making a compromise between the physical size of your kit and image quality. The average cell-phone photographer doesn't even notice the bulk that their tiny lens adds to the overall package.
>The new D600 has 24MP on a larger sensor than the 16MP of the >D7000. The D7000 has greater density, but the D600 has more >total pixels available to put on an image. If you needed to >capture the maximum detail of a specific landscape scene, >which would you choose?
Capturing maximum detail on a landscape scene, the answer is pretty easy: D600.
However, let me relate a story about a day I spent shooting in San Francisco, with a guy who was on a round-the-world trip. He was shooting FX (D700) and I was shooting DX (D300). He had to compromise his kit in order to fit it into his bag, his lens choices being 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, and 200-400 (nice). But, only had space to carry 3 of those lenses. Since his trip would include landscapes and wildlife, he chose to leave behind the 24-70 (probably the same choice I'd make). My DX kit actually fit into a smaller bag than his FX kit. Including a 10-24, 24-70, 70-300VR, My kit covered basically equivalent focal length of 15-450mm without the gap at 24-70, and at the expense of 1 stop of speed at the long end. On a month-long, around-the-world trip, where space is a limit, which is the better kit now? That's the advantage of DX.