Buy Cheap DSLR-A900

Both are great but Canon is in the variety and selection of lenses.

For the first response: You can't only compare focal lengths when comparing lens prices. You also have to compare the aperture and the quality of the build and the materials. Sony lenses are not much more expensive than the true Nikon and Canon counterparts. But if you want to compare the canon 50 f1.8 to the Sony 50 f1.4 in price (which I have seen plenty of people do), then sure, the Sony is much more expensive. But the difference in the aperture is a big difference. You can get the canon 50 f1.8 for under $100, but the canon 50 f1.4 is $325. Sony's 50 f1.4 is $349. Wow what a huge difference. It is a newer lens than the canon as well. And you can get the Minolta 50 f1.7 for about the same or less than the canon 50 f1.8. I have one and I love it.

The issue is people not knowing what the lens designations mean just assuming that two lenses with the same focal lengths are the same. Canon's 70-300 USM is $550. Sony's 70-300 G is $799. Now the difference here, is that the Sony G lenses are pro lenses and so would be more to the quality of the Canon L lenses. So these lenses should not be compared for price because they aren't even in the same league. Canon also has a 70-300 USM I see for $1159. Not even an L lens. So tell me, a canon 70-300 non-L for $1159 or a Sony G lens for $799?

It does look like most of Sony's lenses are about $25 more than Canon and probably Nikon too. Big Deal! As said, all of Sony's brand lenses are less than four years old.

Back to the OP-I just got my a700, have been shooting with a 35mm canon and a 35mm minolta maxxum. And when I decide to upgrade, I will be moving to a ff Sony DSLR. Which one depends on what is available at the time. There may be an a950 by then. As to video, I would rather have more still photography related features-more fps for one-in the camera and have the video left out. I can get a camcorder if I want to shoot video. Th canon 5d mark II and the sony a900 are very similar. Why pay more for almost exactly the same thing? And the Nikon D3X? $8000???!!! You have got to be kidding. It is close enough to the a900 that you could buy the a900 (which is a very similar camera) and then get two or three of Sony's G and Zeiss lenses for the same price as the Nikon body alone. It is all about the name. People are more hung up on the name than the quality of the equipment. Mind you, I am not saying that canon and nikon aren't quality, but it is close-minded to just say that sony isn't without doing any research.

edit-as to the selection of lenses, I just looked on B&H and there are 25 sony brand, 32 sigma brand, 16 tamron brand and 2 tokina brand lenses for the a-mount. That is a total of 75. Now lets tally up how many different minolta lenses are out there that you can use on the alphas:

http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php?ov=1

Just doing a quick adding job and trying not to count newer versions of the same lens unless they added USM or something I came up with more than 50. That brings the grand total of lenses available for the a-mount to more than 125. How many lenses does a person need?

I have the minolta 50/1.7 and the Sony 70-300G and I would like to replace the 18-70 kit lens with the CZ 24-70. I can't see needing many more lenses than that for a while besides a good macro.