How really is FX better....

Your bold text is still below what dpreview considers a signature line. Don't use multiple dash characters. Use an emdash (Shift-Option-dash on a Mac) if you need that kind of character. You can also use the bullet list from the toolbar above.

Different format sizes have different characteristics. Whether they are advantages or disadvantages often comes down to the user. Thinner DOF is a disadvantage to me.

Some of the things I find advantageous about FX are:

• Dynamic Range is greater on FX
• The viewfinder is larger

I don't see the wide ange advantage. The Nikon 12-24mm f/4 DX was a good lens on the D2x. With FX, finding wide lenses that will produce sharp corners is a challenge. The lenses are larger, more expensive, and most have some issues. The 14-24mm is subject to flare, wont take filters without an awkward adaptor, and is large. The Zeiss 15mm and 21mm are manual focus only and very expensive for primes. The 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor has sever field curvature in the corners so you have to focus stack to get sharp corners...

If you are shooting telephoto, DX has the advantage. For a specific field of view you need less focal length on DX.

If you want to use both DX and FX, the D800 is a better choice than the D600. DX on a D800 is about 16 MP where it is only 10 MP on a D600.

--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html