Now go look at the prices of the lenses for Sony. And the LACK of decent selection of ANYTHING. Although it could be worse, you could want a Pentax.
I have two Konica-Minolta Maxxum 7D camera bodies. After Sony bought Konica-Minolta, these cameras were updated just a little bit and became the Sony a900, which was their top of the line DLSR. GREAT camera, GREAT reviews. However, this was before the full frame cameras started becoming readily available.
Enter Canon and Nikon. Nikon came out with the D3, which blew everything else on the planet away in ISO range, shot speed, and full frame quality. Quickly, Canon caught up, and they have been leap frogging each other since. Now Nikon D4 is available... etc...
Jumping back to my Maxxums. I have TWENTY plus lenses for the MAXXUMS, it is a WIDELY available mount and format, and is NOT limited in choice at all. (Same format lenses that are used for the Sony a-series) The beauty of Sony is that the Image Stabilization is BUILT IN. In the BODY. This means that ALL your lenses have stabilization, VR, VS or whatever your brand wants to call it. IN the Nikon and Canon world, you pay for stabilization in EVERY lens that you want it on instead of paying for it once.
FAR cheaper alternatives for lenses, and the major players make lenses for SONY as well as lenses from SONY directly. In regards to quality, you get up to 24.3megapixel images, WITH stabilization, and you can shoot faster than ANY other DLSR.
I must be missing out on what is wrong with this choice. As I mentioned, I have a WIDE variety of lenses, even zoom lenses that are F2.8 glass all the way through.
Now.. do I think that Nikon and Canon are better? Absolutely. But for the money, the Sony a77 for example, is the best bang for the buck IMHO.
And not that it matters, but I have Nikon, Pentax, Canon and Konica-Minolta cameras. I have also shot the Canon 1D and the Nikon D3 units.
FWIW - If I had unlimited funding, I'd replace all that I have with Nikon 4D and Nikon stabilized lenses.