Having owned an f900 for the past ten years I can tell you that I have compared the image quality with a host of other camera systems including DSLRs. One of the reasons I still have it is that the images produced by the f900 are in many ways superior to lower cost newer systems, most of them with full format bayer pattern sensors. Color reproduction on a bayer pattern sensor is not as advanced as a 3CCD camera, and the moire issues can be a real killer. Shooting with a DSLR is like brushing your teeth with a hair brush- it was never designed for that purpose. What clients are really looking for when they request DSLR is a thin depth of field. Shooting at a 1.7 in the 2/3 format has the same depth of field attributes as shooting full format at a 2.8-4.0 split. Add a little more distance from the subject and a longer lens and you can match that beloved DSLR depth without the hassle of operation.
When I used to shoot 35mm film we would tend to shoot at 2.8-4.0 split anyway, because it was impossible to keep moving subjects in focus wide open. These days it seems to be all the rage to have a large amount of shots out of focus- just watch some of those new Discovery shows, it will drive you crazy! I might be an old timer but I would choose the f900 over just about anything ( except 35mm or an Arri Alexa).
The bottom line is this, cameras are just tools. The real image quality comes from you. No one asked Van Gogh what kind of paintbrush he used, they just look in awe at his pictures. Use the camera that you are most comfortable with. I Hope to have helped!
