I do not think though that Nikon would surpass my:
17TS-E L, 24TS-E L II, 35 1.4 L(this is just ordered actually!), 135 f/2L, 300 f/4L (non-IS) 70-200 f/4L IS and 70-200 f/2.8L II
having used both, I'll comment on it:
17TS nikon version is coming per the leaks and patents, but for now canon has the edge, although I prefer the 14-24 anyday over the 17TS personaly but that's because I really don't find 17mm anywhere near wide enough for anything I shoot.
24TS-E nikon has one, only it is older and doesn't do independant Tilt/shift axis configurations, but optically it is just as good. After my switch, I don't miss the canon. what can I say.
351.4L nikon wins hands down. the canon is way old and way worse. I actually wouldn't use the canon because it was so bad compared to the 24L.
135 f/2. Both suck. no really. Nikon has one with defocus control which produces superb bokeh. Much nicer than the L canon, but the canon has faster AF and less CA, but both lack VR. In terms of which one I'd get, it would be the sony Zeiss 135 f/1.8 which wipes the floor with both both optically and spec wise. I wish I had that instead.
300 f/4 non IS (the nikon version is superb) Unless you neede IS, it's a tie.
70-200 f/4. Nikon lacks it for now so definitively a win for canon. Although I'd never use that lens on any system as I prefer shallow DOF.
70-200 f/2.8II. The nikon version nearly identical performance wise with the canon have a slight edge and better MFD. But unlike something like the 17TS, or the fisheye zoom, there just isn't all that much practical difference.
The only canon glass I would consider worth sticking for it is the 65mm macro, the DO line, and the 800mm prime...but Nikon just announced theirs so it is down to very very little. Compare that to a decade ago when it wasn't even close. And all the better for having two systems to choose from means cheaper and better gear for everybody. I'm glad canon has been in a slide for the last decade losing share to nikon/sony because otherwise we'd be shooting 5DmkI's with ancient canon gear.
Lenses I prefer on nikon:
14-24 f/2.8 (since canon lacks it, I compare it to the 14mm prime which gets spanked)
85 f/1.4 (better optically at 1.4 and beyond, cheaper lighter).
16-35 f/4 (it's no that but the canon 17-35 is way worse and lacks IS)
Lenses I found to not matter which one you have:
50 f/1.4 vs f/1.2
24 PCE vs TS
45 PCE vs TS
Lenses I used to prefer on canon, or would consider as being unique enough to the system to have no equivalent in nikon land.
fisheye zoom. It is a useless feature to have zoom on it but the nikon fisheye is very old.
65 macro (although with tubes that may be a different story but the canon is more convenient with its 5X magnification)
I'm not listing the 17TS because I honestly wouldn't care unless it was a 14mm TS.
The nikon 85mm 1.8G DOES NOT surpass the 100mm F/2 canon.
I don't know but thats a silly comparison. who cares really. Neither lens is really interesting. I could believe some would pick systems because of the 14-24, or 17TS. But for the 100 f/2. that's a joke.
Well, you'll always have better luck sticking old Nikkor glass on a Canon Body than on the newest Digital Nikon bodies.
When I switched I tried that. But I found modern nikon glass destroys the old nikkor glass without exception. So I don't know how what you say makes any sense. I guess if you didn't care about image quality that would be the case....I'll keep my newly aquired nano coated nikkors thanks.
You say it's for simpletons. Partially true. But it's more for people without s*** tons of money to waste switching brands every generations.
switching brands is relatively painless these days if your gear is in good shape. 10 years ago it wasn't. this isn't wife swapping. Take it from somebody who did it.
for what i do.. Nikon D800 doesnt have ISO 25600 for video, or sRAW, mRAW... So, NO WAY
that's right. the nikon isn't for low resolution shooters or people that want to shoot in very dark conditions. there are better cameras suited for that such as the D4 or 1DX.
Digital quality wise maybe Canon is lagging a little behind if we are to believe the tests. I do not own Nikon to compare but I believe the tests. However I wonder. A few years ago professionals used Canon and Nikon gear to produce excellent results. The fact that newer and better models are made does not negate the work that has been done up to now. It is still good and professional.
I switched because the nikon glass is just as good for all my needs, and Nikon's high resolution offerings suite my goals better. I couldn't care less if it was nikon or canon or sony that I had to purchase. If I'm going to spend so much money, it will be the system that fits me the best. I'd encourage everybody to do the same instead of suffering from stockholm syndrome...canon or nikon version. These are just tools.