Well, I'm sure it's time for you all to tear me a new arse as you are duty bound to do, but before you do, how many have used all these lenses and cameras for paying work?
Let me be the first.
Actually, not really. First, I give extra points to anyone who actually has to earn a living in photography who participates on this forum. I'm not sure why they bother, but I appreciate that.
As for me, I never have and never will criticize Nikon. It is a great system and I frankly don't see a lot of point in dwelling on the small differences. Some people prefer Nikon, some people prefer Canon. Everyone has their reasons and that's fine with me.
Sony is also fine, but I do believe that people take a bigger risk investing in Sony lenses. I am willing to bet thousands of dollars that Canon will be around for the rest of my life. (In fact, that is what I have done by buying a lot of their lenses). I'd be willing to take that same bet with Nikon. But, I'm old enough to have seen most of the other camera manufacturers come and go to not feel comfortable investing in Sony lenses. That's just me.
I like Canon. That's why I buy Canon. I don't understand people who would buy equipment they don't like. Yet this forum (not you, whomever you are) is filled with people who have bought Canon equipment (or so they claim) and seem so caught up in having the newest technology that they are incapable of enjoying what they have out of fear that the next release by some competitor might be marginally superior in some way.
I think anyone with half a brain and a bit of honesty must admit that for 99% of photographers under 99% of shooting conditions, the cheapest Nikon or Canon DSLR will product results indistinguishable from the flagship full frame model of either manufacturer. Perhaps you are in the 1% and shoot in the 1% of conditions where that is not true. Congratulations to you.
I won't speak for Neuro. But, I think a lot of the people on this forum grow frustrated with commentary that dwells on insignificant differences. In the past several days we've had pages and pages of commentary about how terrible Canon is because you can't shoot straight into a setting sun and have leaves that are in shadow come out properly exposed. Well...boo...hoo.
This particular topic was clearly started with the sole intent of generating anger and frustration from forum participants. And, unfortunately the original poster has gotten exactly what he wanted.
The ongoing commentary on this forum has become particularly ridiculous of late and for me that was underscored because I happened to attend a Scott Kelby seminar earlier in the week. I am sure there will be those who rush to criticize Kelby, but the fact is, the guy is a damn good photographer.
A sizable portion of his commentary was spent on making the point time and time again that equipment is the least important part of photography. He not only says that, but demonstrates it time and time again. He showed incredible images shot with lenses that no one on this forum would dare admit to using out of fear of being massacred because "that lens is a piece of crap."
So, from my perspective, if you find Nikon better for your purposes, that is great. I honestly don't care.