again, as a newbie in dlsrs, let's try to look at things in a neutral perspective. it has been discussed over n over again on 1000d vs d60 vs a200/300. all cameras hav their pros n cons. i'll jus list them down again .
d60, rm1900
pros: Af assist lamp(good for low lighting). active dlightning, incamera post processing.
cons: 3AF points, only works with AF-S/I lenses. Image stabiliser on lense(only VR) - not exactly a cons, just a different way of implementing
Image quality= subjective, some may disagree that the nikon produces a too 'vivid' color, making it a bit fake and cartoonish. again, it's subjective
A200, rm1450
Pros: 9AF points, Built in image stabilizer(works with any lenses),longer battery life, built in motor @body
Cons: slightly higher noise @ >ISO800, no biggie as it's not noticeable on normal printouts, unless if u really wanna find fault with it by zooming in a particular area
Image quality= again subjective, some agreed(even from nikonians) that sony produces much better, softer and accurate color saturation.
Comparing apple to apple, no doubt sony a200 gives a better price to performance/feature ratio. rm450 is a BIG difference
Again, the best is to go to a shop and test all the cameras to see which fits u better. In the end i opted for A200(no fanboyism), i like to look things at a neutral ground. try reading reputable reviews/user inputs. i find www.dcresource.com is good
not to forget, Sony is not a totally new company to dslr, they bought over Konica Minolta, which every1 knows was a pioneer in DSLR before canon/nikon came in
KM, they did not establish it and develop the technologies themselves, whereas Canon & Nikon did it on their own.
Same case: If I buy a Ferrari, does it mean that I'm a professional racing driver?
I personally don't like brand wars, so I won't continue on.