p.s. DSLRs are so good now that it really is like choosing the film you prefer. Shooters like Marc, who have the means to have multiple camera bodies, are in a great position to use the right "film" for the scene.
This has become my working philosophy in a nut shell.
All the bickering and posturing :cussing: about this camera being better than that camera is due to all of them being quite good and none of them being perfect :angel: nor all things to all people.
Unfortunately, the cost factor isn't like using different films that cost $5 to $10.
It involves an investment that most folks aren't willing to make. So we try to squeeze more out of our choice .... which often leads to pushing a piece of gear well beyond it's abilities and "competitively" showing seemingly good examples of that on the internet. Yet in real life, under less than ideal conditions, this inflated promise of performance is often not realized.
Being in the business of making photographs for a living somewhat mitigates all that. If you shoot in varying conditions of which you have little to no choice about, then it becomes clear that one camera cannot do it all. The more refined and demanding your client's standards are for the end product you are selling, the more this becomes apparent.
In all of my different experiences shooting for money, I've found weddings to be the supreme torture test of both the gear's functionality and it's true abilities. You must shoot portraiture, architecture, landscape and journalism type images at a ferocious rate of capture. At one wedding you can be forced to shoot at dead noon in the open sun ... or with the sun behind the subject ... then move to a windowless cave of a church with mixed lighting ... then to a reception with moving subjects lit by a DJs disco ball.
My "dream team" wedding kit is now a A900, Nikon D3X and Leica M8 with very select lenses that match the type of image capture each camera is best at.
Nothing I've used to date matches the A900 for portraits and groups in decent light ... which is the type of shot where you may have much more control as to where and when. The color and dimensional rendering is simply phenomenal. The 85 and 135 are in the bag ... with a back-up 24-70. The Sony 58 flash is an incredibly well designed idea for on-camera journalism type images or fill flash. All on-camera flashes should be designed like this IMHO. But the A900 hunts in low light with the lenses I use. It only shoots to one card at a time. It's higher ISO performance (in less than ideal lighting) is not competitive with the Nikon. Plus, as easy as the color images are to process, I've found that converting to B&W is more time consuming than with other choices. I'm still working on an action or pre-set for that so it may be a non-issue in future.
The Nikon D3X is the go to camera when I must get the shot. I do every "must have, can't repeat it, gotta get it the first time, no second chances" shot with this camera. It shoots to 2 cards. The AF doesn't hardly ever hunt even with the 200/2. It also shoots higher ISOs with less noise. And while getting excellent color/depth is more work than with the A900, B&W conversions from this camera are a no-brainer. Maybe the best B&W DSLR I've ever used for my specific way of rendering B&W. The 14-24 and 24-70 are the primary lenses in the bag ... with an occasional use of the 200/2 VR. The Nikon off-camera flash system using the SB900s is extraordinarily simple and quick to use ... no menu to navigate ... simple analog setting, then shoot.
The M8s are a different way of shooting ... and a welcome relief from lugging a DSLR around for up to 10 hours almost non-stop.
Just my experiences, nothing more or less. Sorry for not having MIT perform a "fact check" with a 2 year long comprehensive quantitative study ... by then I'd be out of business :ROTFL: