Marc's camera failure is old news... from the following I gather that Marc has found his Sony gear satisfactory enough to have sold off his Nikon gear:
Sony The One and Only
Article with Sony reviewed for weddings
Cameras are complex machines. They break. They aren't supposed to but they do. What matters is what you can get out of them when they're working right.
Not only is it "old news", it never needed service. It was promptly corrected by a forum member. In the rush of a wedding shoot, I slightly mis-mounted the lens and the little lever thingy was out of place when I re-mounted.
As far as Canon/Nikon/Sony is concerned ... not only owned them all (and I mean
"ALL"), shot thousands of photos with all (such is the nature of wedding photography). ALL are fully capable and it's just preference. Personally I liked all of them. If I could afford it, I'd own them ALL at the same time, and at times did use at least two systems at the same time ... still had Canon as I started to evolve to Nikon ... still owned Nikon as I evolved to Sony.
NEVER had an operational issue using two different DSLR systems together. I also often shoot with a Sony DSLR, a M9, and a Hassey MFD at the same shoot. Trust me, different 35mm DSLRs are far less different in operation than that combination of systems ...
so I don't agree with Peter on that subject at all.
In the end, I selected Sony for some very basic reasons related directly to my work needs, not internet posturing, purchase justifications and manufacturer hype. I use a simple technique to determine real needs rather than speculative ones. I open various folders of 600 to 800 wedding shots, read the Exif info in CS4 Bridge and see what ISOs and focal lengths, etc. I'm really using ... not what I think I'm using.
Very revealing, try it sometime.
This exercise revealed that: I rarely used over ISO 1000 even with a D3 or D700, which the Sony A900 is fully able to do IF you know how to expose properly. Another revealing example was that while I have an expensive 70-200/2.8G, it's the least used lens in the kit, and mostly it's my assistant using it for shots from the church balcony.
I also study work flow carefully because 500 to 800 shots a weekend is a lot of post processing. The Sony files simply were the best right out of the camera bar none. In my direct experience the Nikon D3X files took the longest to process. Liked the D3X end results, hated the post processing getting there.
So, again, I disagree completely with Peter on the subject of color.
No Canon IS or Nikon VR lenses for ANY of the key focal lengths used for most of my work (especially my heavily used 85 and 135 focal lengths common to all three makers), where ALL of them are stabilized on the Sony.
A900 was about 1/3 the price of the D3X for the same FF high meg sensor ... serious consideration when I have to have at least two of everything for my work: $15,000. verses $5,500. (if it were today, it'd be even less because the second Sony would be an A850).
If the Zeiss 24/2 is reasonably priced I'll get it ... because my Exif info tells me I use the 24-70 @ 24mm about 40% of the time, and a smaller lens with a bit more light gathering ability for dragging the shutter in a dark church or reception room will be welcome.
It all comes down to usage ... real world usage personalized specifically to you. So, no one can say definitively one is better than the other, just better for you. In my case, it was clearly ...
Sony, The One and Only :thumbs:
-Marc