Good people. Can you advise me to whether I'm going crazy?
I'm technically professional photographer. For the past 6 months all the money I've earned has been from photography, but I don't really have the fancy pro gear. So currently my only camera is a D7000 and I really feel I need to get a second body to do justice to the work that's starting to come my way.
Obviously I've considered going full frame. The D4 is probably pushing my budget and I really don't feel like I need one. The D800 is tempting, but I would like more than 4fps and the 36MP files sound like a bit of a hand full. After converting my RAW files to TIFF my shoots are coming out at 10GB with my D7000, so 36MP sounds like a headache. Then there's the D610. It looks like a great camera, except for it's AF system. It's the same as the one in my D7000 and it's served me well, but I am often fighting with it in low light. And at least the AF covers nearly the whole frame in the D7000 rather than a tiny bit in the middle for the D610.
So the other option is the D7100. Nearly identical to the D610, except it's not full frame and it has a superior AF. Also it's a decent bit cheaper and I would probably have to invest in some new glass if I went full frame.
So one of my many questions is, is full frame really that much better than DX? I've looked at low light performance and there doesn't look to be that much difference. I've heard people go on about the feel of a full frame photo. Is there really a better depth to the files coming out of a full frame or is that just camera nerds trying to sound artistic to justify their full frame camera?
It's a real dilemma. One of my photographer friends (a recent Nikon defector) is trying to convince me to go Fuji. That's a bit out there but feel free to comment on it.