This whole discussion has gotten too weird. The A900 is a fine camera; three years ago it would have been the best 35mm-format camera on earth. The D3x is simply different, and from what I can see of the image tests, it gives better image quality at the margins. If you need a camera for some extremes, the D3x is better. If you go on long treks through the mountains, in wild temperature ranges, with lots of water around, taking photos in all kinds of light conditions, and with the possibility that you'll never be back, I'd take a D3x and a D300. If I had an extensive Nikon lens and strobe system, I'd go for the D3x. If I were shooting a wedding that couldn't be repeated, I'd rather have two A900s than one D3x (actually, I'd rather have two D700s, but that's another discussion); if I were a beginning landscape shooter, somebody without an extensive system, I'd probably go for the A900 because of cost. At least for now. The D3 price is down 20% from its release a year ago; a year from now, I'd expect the D3x to be selling for $6000 or so, and judging from what Bernard's been saying, it may come down a lot quicker than that.