Upload & Sell: Off
Sadly, you're forgetting the gorgeous 16 Mb files and increased DR They're different tools, and not meant to be compared
I shoot the D800/D3/D700 and the D7K still has a place for this workin' Pro. IQ is a VERY meaningful thing...O,YMMV eh?!
I agree, they are two different tools, however the OP specifically asked for comparison between the two The OP also expressed the fact they have all FX glass, as they have already thought they would eventually go FX.
I will preface this by saying I have read most every post you've written re: the D7K, amazed at what you do; I certainly wasn't able to draw as much out of mine, as you with yours (there's no bow down smilie for me to put here ). I sturggled with AF, with a couple of lenses / siutations in particular: using a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 wide open, and VERY fast moving subjects that every camera will struggle with (I'm particularly fond of BIF, with the bird flying directly at the lens, and use the 70-200VR2 or 300F4). In both of these situations, I constantly questioned myself, and technique; sometimes focus was in front of the subject, other times behind. I lost trust in myself, technique and equipment Eventually, I borrowed a D300 from a freind, and found significant improvement in my keeper-rate, despite no change in technique, and similar AF settings applied (and, as an aside, found the heavier body better balanced with the bigger lenses). IQ means nothing, when focus is not obtained. Now, back to the discussion at hand...
Honestly, I didn't find the 16MP versus 12MP resolution difference to be that significant... The number sounds like a bigger difference than it really is. I don't shoot a lot of landscape, but can see where that little bit of extra resolution may help, there. At base ISO (D700 @ ISO 200 and D7000 @ ISO 100) the D7K files are a notch above the D700; the dynamic range is great and one can recover more from the shadows and highlights. As the ISO goes up, my D700 produced better results than my D7K - the D700 being better at maintaining accurate colours, providing better detail, while saturation and contrast are retained compared to the D7000 from ISO 3200 and up. the D700 NEF files also "feel" more malleable, and more accepting of changes, like increasing sharpening, etc.
In some respects, the D7K is a better tool than D700 that I latter added (most notably performance at base ISO, metering and U1/U2), but for most of my purposes, the D700 better suited me (build, ergonomics, speed, consistency, flexibility with grip, performance at ISO 1600+).
Now that I have replaced the D7000 with the D600, I truly feel I have the best kit a serious but budget-oriented hobbiest can have. The D700 with/without grip for speed, accuracy and ergonomics. The D600 for lightweight, resolution, metering and dynamic range. Also not lost on me if the improved AF performance on the D600, such that it is almost on par with my D700, except in exceptionally dull light, where it may hunt ever so slightly more. note: I have yet to try BIF with it. I will miss the reach of the D7K, but think cropped D600 files can fill that void (and I couldn't justify keeping the extra body, as I am not generating income from it).
Th OP seems to want a jack of all trades (from events to nature, sports and portraits), using FX glass. With that in mind, the D700 would seem a near perfect fit.
PS - Now, the Siggy 85mm is my favourite lens, and it absolutely sings on full frame, and is far more accurate on both my D700 and D600, despite the narrower DOF