Personally i rate sony up there with canon and nikon, however alot of this forum will disagree (but they are all nikon lovers.... so cant help being wrong)
The Sonys use built in image stabilisation whereas canon and nikon use lense stabilisation.
(image stabilisation/vibration reduction helps you take better pics when your pissed or cold by stopping camera shake)
The advantage of having it built in: You dont have to pay extra for stabilised lenses, and non stabilised lenses like sigma are stabilised.
The disadvantage: You cannot see the effect the stabilisation is having on the image as it happens (not really a big deal), You cant set a panning stabilisation.... but this doesnt seem to cause a problem. I read that lense stabilisation is more effective than in body.... but this may be incorrect.
Basically what it all comes down to is this:
Will you be buying any other kit/lenses or trying to make this a serious hobby.
The main argument against sony is that if you decide to make it a hobby, there are not as many lenses on ebay etc... that you can snap up for next to nothing, unlike canon/nikon. There are a full range of Sigma lenses now in minolta fit, and old AF minolta lenses fit, and sony glass is pretty well priced (particularly the expensive stuff)
If you just want an SLR and dont think you want to become a pro photographer anytime soon, dont worry, its a great camera.
Just make sure you look at the Canon and Nikon offerings too, get a feel for them see what you like.
This is someone i knows' flickr, he shoots sony and produces some pretty stunning images.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulgenge/
