Sony Alpha A900 digital SLR Review

It would be interesting to know how the camera perfoms as a full format DSLR. That is the gap I wish to cross from my old A1 via many digitals then a sony a100. I know David Bailey only needs a tin can a needle and a bottle of silver nitrate to put anything I will ever take into the dustbin, so pro is out for me.
But is it worth the money to go to full frame?
I would be grateful if the knowledgeable users could please advise me (and I am sure many other maybes).
Also isn't stange the amount of new camera versions that are produced compared to the non digital age?

@peter
err.. the review is on how the A900 performs as a 'full format' DSLR because that is what it is. Whether it is worth it or not, for you, depends on how disappointed, or not, you are with your current set-up. If you can afford the top notch glass that Sony do make available to go with this body and like to look at 16x20 enlargements with a 10x magnifying glass from two inches then yes, it is. It won't improve your photography by itself though, like dropping you into a Brawn GP car won't instantly let you lap as fast as Jenson.
@lifethroughalens
Wedding photographers are picking it up for the dynamic range, as Cliff mentions it's one of the best out there. Previous favourites amongst this hard working class of 'pros' were the also unfashionably-branded Fuji DSLR's for the same reason. Didn't use above 400ASA for this particular bread earner in film days so noise is a non-issue.
It's all about suitability, there is no one camera that does everthing perfectly. Indoor artificially lit sports events, Theatre, Rock gigs = not a Sony A900. Studio Portraiture, Product Shots, Weddings, Landscape = good tool.

It's amazing how much byass there still seems to be towards Sony as a SLR Brand often by people who have never tried them. I am a Sony a700 user and was out with it recently when a man shouted across to me "Hey, is that a Canon or a Nikon you're using?" "Neither, it's a Sony" I repiled. He paused before proceding to tell me how fantastic his Canon was. I don't doubt it, but never under estimate Sony SLRs I have 2 a 700 bodies, one with their 16-105 kit lens, the other with a Sigma 50-150 ex 2.8 lens. The results are absolutely superb from both. I did a wedding recently with them and the images have great dynamic range and colour tones and sharpness too.
We all know that Canon & Nikon make fantastic cameras but beware, Sony are coming on Leaps & bounds and their market share increasing. Let's not forget also they have inherited many years of Minolta expertise. Remember the 9xi & 7xi anyone? Again, always in the shadow of Nikon & Canon but fantastic film cameras! Oh & finally, I have a comparison review of the Sony A700 vs Nikon D300 from Amatuer Photographer a while back. The Sony matched the Nikon for image quality & beat it for Dynamic Range. The biggest difference? £500!!! Enough to buy a decent lens for the Sony with the money saved!
Now I want the A900 too!!!