yeah pretty much
seriously though I take pictures of a LOT of things. I love all aspects of photography, both digital and film. (I do mostly digital though, no need for fuss with chemicals and bulky equipment in dark rooms even if it is fun)
My old camera was a Sony A100 too. When I got it I wanted an affordable, entry level-ish DSLR and at the time the three best options in my price rang were the Nikon D40, the Canon XTi and the Sony. the Sony and Canon both had ~10 megapixel's to the Nikon's 6, and little extra gimics like the in-camera IS made it seem like the better deal. Overall it's a decent camera, much better than most P&S' at the time, but there where some area's that really disappointed. The ISO performance was frankly abysmal and was my main impetus for getting a new camera so soon. lenses ended up being my main reason for switching brands.
It's not so much the selection but the cost. They make a decent range of lenses of equal quality to comparable lenses from other companies, but they demand a 30-40% premium for no reason other than being from Sony. If you don't care how much you spend you can cover all your needs with they're selection, but if you've got finding the lens that fits your needs at the price you want can be tricky. really too bad considering how nice the a700 is, also the a900 is a real piece of work (highest resolution full frame sensor available). Sony seams to market to people who are trendy gadget people first and photographers second. If you'd ever had a chance to check out the new a230/330/380's you'll find the body designs are much slicker and more styled compared to other brands (to the detriment of user comfort, IMO), and the UI is built for people with relatively little photography experience (the scene selection modes have help guides and sample photos IN CAMERA)
If you're serious about photography go canon. Nikon is fine too, but seriously buy a canon. (sorry eugimon )