Yes, understood. Each company adds their approach to the base sensor info. But that wasn't the point was it? It was about who made their own sensors. Sony and Canon do, Nikon and Leica do not.
However, since I used both the D3X and Sony A900 side-by-side I will dispute the D3X verses A900 comparison you present. Nikon chose to produce a very flat file with a somewhat better high ISO performance that required considerable time in post to get anything decent from ... where Sony chose to concentrate on midtone response and truer color fidelity especially regarding skin tones right out of the camera. Subsequent firmware for the A900 improved the ISO a bit and helped the noise issues.
To this day you can find many photographers that use the A900 as a benchmark for color and tonal response, where the D3X is a benchmark for nothing. Not to mention the A900 was 1/3 the price of the D3X. In post, the A900 ran circles around the D3X including taking a nap and having diner, taking in a movie, and then still winning. :ROTFL: In other words, a nice Nikon camera for those with oodles of discretionary time to waste at the computer. The D3X was one of the worse 35mm DSLRs for people photography, portraits, weddings and events I ever owned, and I was glad to be rid of it.
As always ... IMHO.
- Marc