Seconded, although it's still good enough if you get any decent shots at all. Whenever I am clicking through the facebook photoalbums I don't find any good shots at all :110: I normally delete about 50% of the photos I on a trip as they are rubbish or doubles, another 40% are just for me to remember and stuff but for example among all the photos I took in Paris last year, I'd say only 3-5 (~900 taken) were really good.
Other than what's been said, the simple fact that Nikon and Canon have been making cameras for decades - Sony haven't. There are thousands and thousands of used lenses out there for Nikon and Canon that WILL work with a digital camera... yes, even old manual lenses. How many are there for Sony? Canon have cameras in the top end that are for specific purposes. So the 1DS Mk 3 is still the camera for portraits and such, whereas sports photographers might prefer the 5D Mk 2. The way they mark their range is confusing... although in a way, so is Nikon's.
Well nothing much has changed since Sony took over Minolta, so I wouldn't say it's a really fair comment. I seen a comment about this the other day on dpreview.com . People were saying that when Sony took over Minolta they'd stick all crazy gadgets and gizmos in their cameras. But if you look at it now they're really bare on their features, and are going with a very classic approach. Lens range is probably a little lower than Canon and Nikon. I can't really say as I've not totalled them up from each manufacturer, but I certainly wouldn't think that there's anything at all lacking in the lens range available. Oh actually just thought, there's no tilt/shift lens from Sony as of yet. Yeah I'm not saying Canon or Nikon make bad cameras, nor am I putting them down that can't do everything. I'm just saying that Sony actually make pretty decent ones that can compete with Canon/Nikon/Pentax etc. And band for your buck, Sony works out quite nice.