Francis Carver: Not sure what the actual purpose behind these shots is? I mean, there are plenty of available photos of 1950s era automobiles available that were taken in the 1950s. These are different (better?) -- how? Not trying to be difficult, mind you, I am just really "not getting" these ones here.
Did you read the article and understand how these photos are made. the car are all small-scale models photographed to seem life-size, without the toyish look.
oselimg: I don't care about the gold, diamond or silver award. I want to get the best for what I pay. Unfortunately anyone with around thousand dollars to spend on a camera has to look away from this camera. The jpeg versions look over-processed even apparent on ISO 1600. It's obvious that there is a lot of noise underneath to deal with. The jpeg engine tries very hard to recover the detail by re-producing them rather unsuccessfully. The compared Canon, Nikon and Pentax have much more natural looking pics without the color smear. And finally, it looks like 24mp sensor has no real life benefits in terms of fine detail. A big and successful company like the Sony has to come up with better image solutions I am afraid. They are doing the same mistakes the Canon used to do, playing the high megapixel count game.
The best in what? In everything? I dont' think there is a camera like that. This camera may not have the best hi-iso IQ but it excels in other areas.