Yes, As I mentioned before, the D3x is a much more rugged camera and has additional features. Thus as a mechanical beast I would definitely class it better than the A900. However, the A900 build is very very good and offers weather sealing at a fraction the cost of a d3x. We have all been there and seen this argument so I wont revive it.
As far nikon pitiful lenses go
the 14-24 and 24-70 are indeed good lenses and i have owned both. In fact, I have owned evey single Zeiss ZF lens made and used them on my d3, d3x, d700 and F6 because all the other primes by Nikon were just rubbish. even the highly regarded 84 1.4 was worthless when compared to the zeiss 85 or anyother 85 in its class. I tried 3 nikon 85's and never achieved good color or contrast and for the most part fairly soft. Some will argue that the lens is tac sharp but the 3 I had never performed. In fact when people would post their nikon 85 images that looked sharp the minute you saw a decent crop of an area you would see how soft it was. So, all said, I gave up all my Zeiss ZF glass cause I wanted AF and managed to get some pretty nice Sony mount Zeiss. Oh, yes I had the 200 f2 and loved it but it did not come close to the Canon 200 f2. The images out of the Nikon look great but when you put them side by side with the Canon version you can see the lens is not as good as the Canon.
I hope I have not ruffled too many feathers here but so far the Sony meets my needs and at a very attractive price.
The one exception is my Leica M glass just blows anything out of the water.
But we all knew that already.
Yes. Thank you Nikon Canon and Sony. You all make wonderful cameras and each one has its unique advantage over the other.
Just a few more ...
This one below was with the ZF 100