I'm a former 5d2 owner, and these comments/arguments crack me the hell up. I love this site, but there are TOO MANY FOLKS on here compared to NikonRumors. You know why? Canon loyalists are too frustrated fighting amongst themselves.
For the record, I own the D800 and have none of the left AF/greenish-LCD problems that are overblown. It's FAR from perfect, as well, and frankly I really miss the sheer simplicity of the 5d2. That said, Nikon's UWA lenses are far better and that was my reason for switching. I tried out the D600 at Best Buy today for a long, long time. It's a extremely good DSLR. I wish I'd waited on it and saved myself about $850. Is it 90% of 5d3? I don't even know what in the holy hell that means. It is PHENOMENAL for $2,099!!!! That, my friends, is a fact.
Now let's move on to lenses: We can say the new 24-70/2.8 II is $400-500 more expensive than Nikon's equivalent. But it's also a better lens. So people, to be honest we have to play fair. The 24-120/4.0 VR is every but as good as the 24-105, only...well....it's a better, newer lens. That's why it's higher. Because it covers more range and screw Ken Rockwell. I know that's where most of you people get your info. The reason the following lens from Nikon are MORE EXPENSIVE is because they are NEWER AND BETTER GLASS than Canon's equivalent:
Nikon 50/1.4g or 50/1.8g (VERY GOOD BTW)
85/1.8g (very good BTW)
28/1.8g (very good BTW)
24/1.4g (amazing BTW)
16-35/4.0vr (amazing BTW)
--Nikon will make a 70-200/4.0VR eventually, just like Canon will make a very good UWA eventually. I had the 17-40L, and while good....it was soft in the corners and had other issues. It's funny how no one mentions the very solid Nikon 28-300VR that sells for about $800-900 used. What does Canon's cost???
Be real and enjoy what you own. Don't let these childish squabbles get in the way of enjoying your camera.
+100000 right here!
I went from a 450D to a D700 because of Nikon's fantastic midrange prime selection. I currently have a 50/1.4G and 85/1.8G and they're both tremendous lenses. Canon's competitors in this area are outdated and, while cheaper, are not serious lenses for someone investing in full frame. With Nikon I can have a full range of modern, fantastic primes that perform well above their price for the cost of one L lens, and that was worth switching for me.
That said, it doesn't really matter what you shoot! DR this, handling that, blah blah blah. Both sides have things that the other doesn't, and both make cameras whose capabilities vastly outmatch the photography chops of the average forum poster.
For me, the areas in which Nikon excels (normal primes, UWA) are more interesting than Canon's specialties, and I found the D700 to be sufficiently better/more robust than a 5D2 for my money when I was comparing brands. Having handled a D600 this weekend, I'm very glad I jumped on a new D700 at $2200, as the D600 feels VERY plasticky. It would be great for someone coming from a Rebel-type camera, but I can't imagine holding a camera like that again after putting almost 15k shots on my tank-like D700 in these past 6 months.
Lol @ nikons prime selection. Its has nothing on canon, And that's the reason Im still here.