>You understood my question exactly, Larry. > >I apologise for not explaining my original question >correctly.
Thanks Paul. I'll admit I'm feeling somewhat persecuted in this thread, but I really didn't think you were honestly asking if a 12MP camera had higher resolution than a 24MP camera.
This question does raise an interesting conundrum that faced users during the D3/D300 introduction. A lot of pro shooters were shooting D2x which is a 12MP DX camera, and these people moved to D3 (12MP FX), and were wowed by the image quality. Here's the rub... Many who were shooting wildlife with a 200-400 f/4, suddenly found themselves faced with a choice of either the high-ISO noise of the old D2x, or 5.4MP (DX crop) images from D3, or dump $12K on a 600 f/4; the latter making FX a $20K move! Not to mention trading a moderately hand-holdable lens for an outright behemoth.
At that point, many of us who'd gone with D300, scratched our heads. Of course the D3 + 600/4 would give better IQ than a D300 + 200-400/4, but at the cost of $12K and a tremendous amount of bulk, and always working from a tripod. If any of that causes you to miss a shot, then IQ doesn't exactly matter!
Ultimately, there's a reason why you see more landscape shooters with medium format than wildlife shooters, and this is related to pixel density, or more specifically, getting more pixels on your subject with a smaller lens. In this respect, especially if frame rate is important, there still isn't anything In Nikon's line that touches D300s. Actually, D800 in DX crop mode, with the battery grip, probably does. D7000 is the next closest. D600, offering 5.5fps and a 10.3MP DX crop mode is no slouch, so if you were to use this as an FX camera for most of your uses, and DX wildlife camera for just that, it's not a bad way to go. However, if your primary use is DX/wildlife, I don't see it as a smart option. Still waiting for D400