The Alpha 900 seem to be a good camera, but after now the Canon 5D Mk II came out, I would prefer the 5d, it is cheaper and it seem to be an amazing camera. With canon you also have more choice in lenses I believe.

For the same price of the sony alpa 900 you get the 5d body + for example the new amazing Sigma 50 1.4 lens (which seems better than canons 1.4).

Or take the Canon 50D with a good prime like the 50 mm Sigma and add the 70-200L 2.8 Lens for approximately the same price as the alpha 900 body alone and with that you have excellent equipment.

It's not so much a question of the number of lenses, but if they can actually resolve the huge number of pixels of these cameras. dpreview's test of the 50D shows that this is becoming a problem. The Zeiss lenses for the Sony on the other hand, have apparently been designed with the A900 in mind. If I could afford to switch, I would have done that now. The A900 with Zeiss 24-70/2.8, Zeiss 135/1.8, Sony 70-300 G and a macro would cover what I need.

The more photos I see from that camera, the more impressed I get.

I guess you have to ask yourself what you want to use your DSLR of choice for.  Personally, I think the A900 with 24MP is overkill unless you plan on doing some harsh cropping or making alot of poster prints.
I bought the A350, which was 700 bucks body only at the time so I had extra cash to begin building a lens system.
So far I still have yet to purchase any Sony brand lenses since there are so many excellent quality and affordable legacy FF lenses available which work wonderfully on the A350.  I also love the live view system of the A350 and find it quite freeing to be able to make images at angles and points of view that would otherwise be very difficult without a flip-out live view screen.
At 14.2MP, it's more than adequate for "XL" size on Istock and involves only a slight bit of upsizing if you submit to Alamy.
Just think of the extra 2,000 bucks you can spend on lenses as opposed to getting the A900.

don, eppic, eppix,  and everyone here,
keep talking. i am learning a lot from all of you,
and for sure, this is getting more and more informative and helpful
to decide on my new camera to get. and lenses too.

that is why i like this forum so much. there are some of you who are truly
willing to share your knowledge and i find this attitude not only very professional,
but very impressive.

I guess you have to ask yourself what you want to use your DSLR of choice for.  Personally, I think the A900 with 24MP is overkill unless you plan on doing some harsh cropping or making alot of poster prints.
I bought the A350, which was 700 bucks body only at the time so I had extra cash to begin building a lens system.
So far I still have yet to purchase any Sony brand lenses since there are so many excellent quality and affordable legacy FF lenses available which work wonderfully on the A350.  I also love the live view system of the A350 and find it quite freeing to be able to make images at angles and points of view that would otherwise be very difficult without a flip-out live view screen.
At 14.2MP, it's more than adequate for "XL" size on Istock and involves only a slight bit of upsizing if you submit to Alamy.
Just think of the extra 2,000 bucks you can spend on lenses as opposed to getting the A900.

It's always a question what you're going to use the camera for, and lenses vs expensive body is a dilemma. Still, you can't really compare the body, and particularly not the viewfinder, of the A350 with the A900. They are completely different animals. The only realistic alternative for me, within the Sony range, would be the A700, but then I use my cameras for a living. I would assume that an A900 would last at least twice as long as an A350. That also puts the price difference in another perspective.

As for the 24 megapixels: when doing stock photography, there are never too many of them. With the A900, it's possible to crop for Alamy if needed, or reduce size if the image is too noisy or lacks detail.