Sony are very new and tbh I don't yet see them as a valid contender. How many times do you see Sony cameras at big events?
You kind of answered your own question before you'd asked it there.
In fact you'll see Sony cameras at most major events. If they are being televised. Sony are leaders in broadcast quality video cams.
How often do you hear of photographers wanting to switch from Nikon to Sony? The range of lenses offered by Nikon will let you play in various fields and allow you to be creative. Its not about buying them all its about having the option to buy something if you want to change direction. Nikon and Canon are good enough for almost all the professional photographers in the world and that says a lot.
It does say a lot and their products are excellent but it doesn't say that nobody else could ever match their quality. Much as I hate to admit it, because I despise Sony's marketing methods, you'd have to be plain stupid to suggest that a company with the resources that Sony has, that already makes major components for other camera companies, Nikon included, already has a huge presence in pro video equipment and P&S markets won't create a storm in DSLR's.
Nikon has a bigger userbase for support, a bigger selection of lenses, I'd imagine a better customer support system and so on. What about Sony's flash system? ISO performance? Prime lenses? Dynamic range performance?
.
Sony bought the "dead in the water" Minolta camera division and with one product, took a 20% market share in 2006. If they'd been quicker getting the new models out I can't imagine where they'd be.
Sony didn't get all of Minolta's lens manufacturing facilities, so have been starting pretty much from scratch there and it's damaged them. But again, Sony's resources.....It will not be long. And with Sony, third party lenses are a viable option because you don't need IS lenses. There are very good lenses available from Tamron (part owned by Sony) and Sigma that whilst not always on the shelf are easily obtainable. The Zeiss lenses are, as you'd expect, outstandingly sharp. Personally I prefer the bokeh on the classic G glass but that's my choice.
Minolta invented wireless flash. The built in flash triggers them so you don't need a £300 slave! You can use as many as you like. Set ratios. They can be used at any shutter speeds. 1/2000s? no problem, wirelessly too if you like and Sony released 2 new ones this year.
The ISO and DR performance are very much a perception issue. A perception caused in part by the problems that some graphics apps had with mauling the RAW output from Sonys. Some of the apps have been fixed others pretend that they didn't have problems but the fact is, when you don't use those apps the picture quality is fine.
Sony have chosen to approach their image processing in a different way to some of the competitors and the results are not as some might expect but I like it, so maybe others will too.
If you don't believe me then maybe DPReview can help.
D40x conclusion.
Sony A200 conclusion. D40x is highly rated, A200 is just about highly rated.
I think I'd rather believe you Pete. I find with most review sites and magazines quite frankly, that you can predict the results of comparative tests by totting up the advertising revenue from each manufacturer in their publications and ranking the cameras in ££££ order. I've read reviews and then checked the points tally at the end and seen them contradict themselves on many occasions. :shrug: Pinch of Salt!
I'm not advertising Sony. I couldn't give a monkeys what the OP buys. I dislike the Sony corporation, would never tire of punching their marketing department and every time I'm watching a movie and someone opens a Vaio laptop and thrusts the badge into the camera I want to vomit but however you slice it their cameras are a product worthy of consideration.
