I don't really need to write anything you know, just read this - I feel exactly the same: http://photo.rwboyer.com/2012/04/15/some-good-things-D7000.
But hold on, let me add my 2 cents.
Some context first; I arrived at the Nikon D7000 from a long apprenticeship.
I started with a Yashica FX-3 and its 50mm f/1.8, then I moved to a Nikon F70 (we're still in the ancient film era now). After a few crappy compact digital cameras (and one less crappy than others, the Canon G5) I got my first DSLR (a Nikon D70s) which was excellent until it broke down.
Since I was always traveling and hiking and biking I wanted a smaller camera so I bought a Panasonic GF-1 that I still have (and will keep for many more years to come; it's still much better than any compact camera and only marginally larger).
I'm not the first to say it out loud but I like to remind myself that I have always felt like this, since my early days on the Yashica FX-3. And therefore, every time I read some better articulated 'pro' photographer decanting the virtues of fixed-lens photography, I feel peace and happiness.
It's something that goes back to when I had little money so I quickly learnt the value of fixed lenses; cheaper and better quality than zooms, they force you to move around and to find better vantage points for your photos.
And even if I do have some more money now, still I like the self-discipline that fixed lenses force on you. Maybe I just value more the quality of a lens (faster apertures, better optical quality) and the weight of it over the convenience of having just one big bulky lens. That's why I have three 50mm Nikkors, a 35mm f/1.8, an 85mm f/1.8, a 200mm f/4, a 17mm f/2.8 (for the GF-1) and just one zoom (Tokina 12-24mm f/4).
- how many fps do you need? The other day I was shooting some pics at a bike race. I put the continuous-high speed drive. Holding the shutter down meant a rat-tat-tat-tat sequence, unbelievable -- apparently this thing goes up to 6fps. Do you really need more? Then you're a fuckin' pro, and you don't need to read anything here because you already know everything.
- I like how this camera is built. It's certainly not a tank but it doesn't feel fragile which is the most important thing. And I don't go light on my D7000, I mean I rarely use a proper bag, I put it down in the dirt or on the rocks when I'm outdoor hiking or cycling, and it scratches, yes, but it doesn't break. So the fat nerds that discuss at lengths on the internet about how this camera is not for a 'pro', well they really should just get out more.
- The dynamic range is just incredible. You can retrieve so much information from badly over/under-exposed photos in processing that is just mind blowing.
- very good quality at high ISO but you get used quickly to these things; it's only when I go back and compare some 1600 ISO shots of the D7000 with those of the GF1 or the D70s that I go 'wow' once again.
- The ability to shoot video is great and all the efforts to create some good, thoughtful shots (an easy-to-use handycam it ain't) makes you feel like Scorsese. It's true what they say, if you wanna shoot video buy a proper camcorder; but what is also true is that a DSLR gives you enormous flexibility in framing the shots and excellent video quality, and the final results have that cinematic quality that still impresses me. But yes, I do agree that we need to restrain ourselves from abusing the shallow depth-of-field effect.
- I think that for today's computers 16Mp is just fine; we can crop the hell out of these files and still have enough pixels to make some large prints. A mid-level computer has enough grunt to process these files with little effort (my macmini didn't, so that's why I built myself a hackintosh). I just don't understand the 36Mp of the D800; I've played with the beatiful 12Mp files out of a D700 and they are just great, who the hell needs 36Mp?