KevinBarrett wrote:So, are you guys just trying to "win" at this point? Sony's SLRs aren't the best, but they are certainly a great value, and it's alright to get enamored over a good deal...to a point. Sonolta, I appreciate your presence on this forum because among other things, you do a wonderful job of bringing perspective and facts to a thread, but one need not be so combative. Dusty, you aren't the only one who is annoyed by link salad, but sometimes the competition deserves praise. If we never acknowledged where the competition offered a better camera/lens/etc..., how could we send a message to Sony about what we hope for in future products?
Most of what people are splitting hairs about in this thread will not make a difference in a print. But since cutting edge is cutting edge, and if one wants to make the very best quality images down to pixel level, one would likely do their own research in system utility and image quality before purchasing a camera in the $3k-8k range.
Not trying to "win" Kevin, just pointing out (again) that an image in more than the sum of it's DXO Labs numbers. I liked parts of both the Sony and Nikon originally posted photos.
I have said in other threads that I bout Sony for it's price/performance point. Many factors went into that, not just IQ, although I'm happy with my A350's IQ. I'm not a high ISO user, nor am I gazillion frames a second shooter.
Camera selection is much more complicated today than when I started. Identical lenses using on differing cameras with identical film and exposure produced identical results, unless one of the cameras didn't fire at the the selected speed. Basically, if the camera had the few features you needed, and glass of sufficient quality, you could do whatever you needed with it. Today you are 'stuck' with whatever film the camera has in it, and while you can dial in exposures to suit your needs, resolution, 'grain' and other things are not going to change.
I would LOVE to see the DR and TR of sensors match and even exceed film. As I and 3/4 of the respondents to the high ISO poll stated, low light is not that much on our radar. However that's not even in question here, although someone want to keep posting about that in the thread. I love resolution. Granted, resolution without quality is doggie-doo, but I don't think that's really a problem with the A900. I would love to someday have a great digital camera that I can hold in my hand, shoot like a 35mm, and get 8x10 view camera results from. Some people have no desire for that, they many a 128000000 ISO camera that will do 72 fps. To each his own!
Dusty
An a700, an a550 and couple of a580s, plus even more lenses (Zeiss included!).
BTW...you keep skipping the image resource studio images as well as the Popular Photography conclusions as well. 
A DXO non-normalized comparison (straight output)...a900 vs D700 vs D90.
