I don't see that as being the case, with the 5D mk2 vs the D700 Canon offered superior resolution and video while Nikon offered superior AF, build and FPS.
I respectfully disagree. It wasn't like canon wanted to offer superior resolution, they had no other choice as they will never offer pro AF in anything other than 1D series. So canon decided to sacrifice 1Ds sensor to protect their 1D sports market. If they did it the other way and offered pro AF, pro built, weatherseals in $2500 body, how are they gonna justify their $4500 1D?
Video was added by their marketing as a gimmick and it worked.
It seems like there offering that or something close to it in the new 5D.
Really though I don't see how this arguement disprooves my own, yes Canon likely wanted to defend the market for the 1D with the 5D mk2 but you could argue Nikon wantd to defend the D3x market with the D700 plus of course Nikon was also offering a superior ISO/FPS performance to the D700 for alot of its run with the D3s. Whether you personally like it or not video was clearly a massive feature for large numbers of people on the 5D aswell.
How does that disproove my arguement that Canon were offering more in some areas and Nikon in others?
The difference to me seems to be that in the past Nikon were the more conservative company with many releases where as Canon pushed ahead with new tech first and could offer less performance in other areas as a result. Nikon linking up with Sony for sensors while Canon stay exclusively in house seems like its evened the odds to me though and I suspect we'll see more back and fourth from both companies.