Just Posted: Sony SLT-A37 16MP entry-level fixed-mirror DSLR preview

No moving mirror means no mirror-slap, so details will likely end up similar at slower shutter speeds. Less shutter lag. Quieter. Your approximations for light and details lost are kind of high. Quality constant autofocus and tracking in video. The mirror on the SLT doesn't get as dirty as a traditional mirrorbox, as it doesn't move. Inbody stabilization works really well too, just as on Pentax bodies. I'm not saying you are totally wrong, but I find it to be a good compromise, and I'm happy with my output from my SLT. I think it will move a step forward in years to come, once the obsession with having an AA filter is gone, or Sony implement their organic-based sensor tech. Maybe the K-01 makes sense to you because you have a bunch of Pentax lenses?

Plus, the viewfinder size is significantly larger in the SLT range vs those in comparable budget cameras.

Here's why shooting with an SLT can be amazing. A DSLR viewfinder shows you what your lens sees. With an SLT, you're seeing what the sensor sees. It's a different way of working but it makes more sense. EXAMPLE: Let's say you want to boost ISO. Does your DSLR viewfinder get brighter? Of course not. But the electronic viewfinder in an SLT does, just as your shot would, because you're seeing it as the sensor sees it (just like the sensor would capture it). This comes in handy in so many ways. Here's something else an SLT can do: Let's say you're taking a group portrait. You can set your viewfinder up to give you a 2 second review after each shot IN THE VIEWFINDER. So, the moment you take the shot, you see it in the viewfinder while you're still holding the camera at your eye. Did somebody blink? You'll see it while you're still set up to take the shot again, so... take it again before anybody moves! It's a better workflow. I switched from a D7000 to an a77 and I love it.

It is a longer time that I took distance from Nikon. Pricing for the good material is the main reason. I have friends who have the D700, 3x and the 800. The 800 has an impossible picture size for the common use and downsizing often results in bad picture quality. I use a Nex 7, mainly for the weight, and d700 and 3x do not make for a cent better shots. I would have preferred the 16mpix in the body of the NEX 7 and I hope that Sony will upgrade the 5N to the 7 body in close future. 16 mpix is even too big but still a reasonable size for a common use. I am not willed to pay 3000 $ for a gear when I can get the same good picture for 1200$ anyway. I leave that expensive things to those who need a heavy duty stuff for to work with it. What Nikon makes in the low end is often questionable.

I ow a D40 and a Fuji S5 and in counter light situations, none of all the other can challenge the Fuji anyway. She is and remains my preferred DSLR. A pity we could not get a continuation of that sensor in larger format. But, life goes on, with good and less good things, it's just a choice to make.

There's a lot of good reasons for Nikon as well as good reasons for any other brand. One might be a huge legacy of lenses and accessories as well as probably the best world wide support in existence. Buying into the F mount provides a gateway into this treasure trove from the 1950s until present.

We all know it's the photographer more than the camera. If one can't get a better image from a D700 then one need only look in the mirror. Obviously that camera is not for you.

If downsizing is a bad thing, then I suppose there's just about not a camera made today that produces good prints most of the time. If you can see no advantages in a 36 mp $3000 camera, obviously a D800/e is not for you.

Nikon has coexisted with Canon, Pentax, Minolta and others for over fifty years. I guess they can do so with Sony. They are an optical glass company and that's what they do. They don't spend R&D on televisions or office copiers. They do cameras and lenses and yes, Nikon owners are proud of that.

"Buying into the F mount provides a gateway into this treasure trove from the 1950s until present. " - With D3200 or any other low or mid range Nikon it's as much "treasure trove" as M42 lenses on A37 with adapter.
LOL
But see this! M42 legacy reaches 1949 when Zeiss Contax introduced it! Now... who has nicer "treasure trove" again?

"probably the best world wide support in existence." - you should hear all the arguments and scandals Nikon had related to it's "best world wide support" in central europe. Even Pantax got more realaible and fair support. Not even to remind you that Nikon warranty is worth world-wide as much as Sony's - region limitations apply everywhere.

"f you can see no advantages in a 36 mp $3000 camera, obviously a D800/e is not for you. " - What does it have to deal with A37 being far superior to D3200?! OMG...

Well, it's the newbies buying D3200 or A37 or C1100. Hence the comparison with Nikon. :) Thought it's quite straightforward.

" Buying into the F mount provides a gateway into this treasure trove from the 1950s until present."

With a D3200, you don't have metering with non-chipped lenses (pre-1988). With D7000, you can't safely mount non-AI lenses (pre-1977). You actually have more old Nikon lens compatibility with a Canon DSLR or Sony NEX!

Pentax uses the same sensor, the rework in the camera and the managing of the sensor is what does it, Nikon uses the same sensor too and the recent Sony cameras manage it in a better way than the D90 for example. What does it is the software they use, and Nikon always managed to make a better deal from the sensor than Sony. But Sony is on the good way, the Bionz gets powerful and better at every new issue. A sensor that is own made is the 20 mpix Samsung, a huge sensor, as good and in some points even better than the Sony 24.

So a company who hasn't had anything to do with the design and production of a sensor will find it easier to work on it? You been mixing up your meds?