Surprisngly little is said about the image quality of the sensor from my reading thus far, and the Johnny B Goode dude just added to the confusion, along with MR. Cameras are so good nowadays that we see lists of petty, small-time moans rather than how well the things actually work. And you get cabals of these types, such as the Devlin guy with LL. And the cheesy tiny images, which tell you only that it can take a photograph.
I still feel the a99 is too much $$ for a primarily MF stills shooter with an 850/900, they are trying to leverage off the video capability and bells and whistles, and it doesn't work that way. Unless the sensor is absolutely superb - uh, but did I miss that assessment?
'Superb image quality' - yes, I saw that amongst the EVF, assorted fluff and corporate rundown, but why not shoot the same shot with an a900 and show them side by side? Show don't tell...so it's great but needs significant sharpening and should lose the AA, 'the A99 produced a decent image although moiré and aliasing is clearly there!' compared with what exactly? So no filter or a stronger filter...lol.
EVF - OK, pros and cons we all know, it just needs to be good enough to compose and show adjustments in the histo plus peak/LV, good enough for me, I can ignore grain up etc. once I see how the final images look on screen.