I don't care about video. Should I?

I bought a camcorder for video and a stills camera for . . . well . . stills.  I don't think you're missing anything, but electronics gets more and more 'packaged', it just means more to go wrong and both de-value and/or render an item US.  Yes, some things are very handy (LV for instance), but for the bread and butter users such as myself, I don't have the need for the next big thing, though just wish the like's of Sony would better improve things like noise handling algorithms and low light capability without trying to re-invent the wheel.  Heck, take a sound system.  All-in-one or separates?  I've gone from all-in-one to separates for better Hi-Fi.  This can be applied to 'tography in many ways.

Sure, someone somewhere who is possibly a member of the paparazzi and who 'needs' built-in Wi-Fi to upload their latest Pulitzer Prize photo may find it useful (heck, if a mobile phone can do it, why not a DSLR), but if you're a technophobe, then again, if you think these gizmo's and gadgets are going to help you take better photo's, then I think you're in for a shock as this takes essentially 2 elements: A decent lens and the photographer.  A 3rd element might be the camera itself.

Sony have decided to go with a revised version of ancient technology that was introduced with the DiMAGE A200 bridge camera in the form of EVF, but have in addition decided to make existing items such as external flashguns and lenses to be less than 100% compatible, so there's 1 step forward and 2 steps back.  Was there anything wrong with the A700/A850/A900?  Not really, but whilst their mag-alloy bodies could've been retained and upgraded with a tilt/swivel screen, LV, LMA (as with A850/A900) and various other improvements and enhancements, for those not wishing to go down the EVF/SLT route have little choice other than to change brands (I run a K-Mount system as well and I can tell you that my K-5 blows my old A700 to pieces and is everything I would've wanted in the A-Mount, but have found it with Pentax).  Pentax don't have a FF body BTW, hence 2 systems - I have no wish to pay stupid money for an electronic gadget box such as an A99 as triple digit FF is more than a capable tool.

So, back to your question.  Why have you asked it?  Are you intending to make movies with a DSLR or would you prefer to make movies with a dedicated movie camera that costs a fraction of the price?  Are you intending to take stills images?  Do you want it just because it's there irrespective of whether it's used or not?  Are you happy to pay for the privilege?  stick to the basics.  I don't know if you're a novice or a pro, but guessing by the question, I imagine the former.  What difference does this make?  Price, need and want.  Personally, I would be focused 'excuse the pun' on getting a decent body (your choice if OVF or EVF) and the best quality lenses (it doesn't have to cost a fortune) so that you get the optimum results possible instead of making do.  If afterwards you feel that you've reached a level of competence with stills, then possibly venture into video, but I wouldn't want to be skateboadring with an A99 and a top-shelf G lens attached, but we're all different after all.  Needs and wants.  Do you want it or do you actually need it?

--
Mark @ Sonolta * Photography