I guess the best option is to keep the D7100 and add a D610 or D800 to the arsenal. While on the subject, does anyone know whether the refurbished Nikons sold by Adorama, B&H, etc, have the oil problem dealt with?

Sadly, yes. That's why I'm debating this.

I won't get into the discussion about post processing. That horse has been pretty well beat. I don't consider myself an artist so I don't try to alter what I see. Thanks for the advice. Hadn't really considered the fact that most of the better quality lenses are FX. I guess for now I'll keep the D7100 but start buying lenses (24-70, 16-35, etc) as I can afford them, and when I can, spring for what will probably be a D800s or whatever Nikon chooses to call it.

I am happy with the D7100, but I just figure that there has to be a reason that so many people are willing to spend the extra money for FX. I find that noise is pretty well under control up to iso 1600, and not really too bad beyond that to a reasonable limit. Would it be any better on a D610 or D800? Is the dynamic range better all around or just at the low light end? Most of my shooting is of outdoor scenics. I'm old school and prefer not to doctor the photos in PS, but rather make the most out of what I actually see and would like to produce the best possible shot with the camera & lens. Not a pro, not looking to sell anything, but enjoy making nice pics, thus my original question.

I've been at this photo thing for quite a while and am fairly heavily invested in DX gear (Nikon D7100, 10-24, 17-55, 10.5, etc). Is there any real benefit to upgrading to FX? I am happy with my D7100 but have wondered, since FX cameras and lenses are so much more expensive, are they really worth it?