What? I just don't understand this statement. And here is why:
If you look back a few decades, Nikon was the camera of professionals. End of story. Canon, although they had professional offerings, made their mark in the consumer sector. Fast forward to the last 4-6 years and the tables got turned a bit. I for one got feed up with Nikon's apc format stance & switched to Canon. Now, finally Nikon has gotten their act together. This is good for both companies and the marketplace in general.
Canon has done more for moving the bench mark for the small format camera then all the other small format camera companies combined. Yes there is tons of complaining about the aging wide angles but who complains about their long glass? Or the special lenses such as the 85 1.2?
The 10, 20, 30, 40D's were traditional Canon bringing the camera technologu to the masses - on a consumer level approach. Nikon's approach has always been slightly different - more working photographer.
The 5D - holy cow man - this camera existance is a huge milestone. Yeah, it may not be perfect but look what it did. Would we even being talking about a full frame Nikon right now?
End of story? Canon turned the tables "a bit" in the last 4-6 years? OK, we disagree on some issues (like the 20+ years ago that Canon trounced Nikon with superior AF and then IS lenses, and hasn't looked back since), but if we can avoid a C/N battle right now as we do agree on some things I'd prefer it. I've been shooting over 30 years, have used both systems, and I'm a working photographer. I prefer Canon, but they're wearing me out.
I'm not a Canon lens complainer and I've replaced a lot of them in the last few years. I love my 85L's (still have two but sold one Mk I a month ago), all my other L primes except the 50L which is a crap lens, my 3 TSE's, my L zooms, and I just purchased another 300mm f/2.8 IS 6 weeks ago. I have no problem with Canon glass, and even love my 16-35 bthough people tell me I shouldn't. I have no Nikon glass envy and think 14-24 aside, Nikon is second fiddle as far as I'm concerned.
As for bodies , which is what generated my comment, I think it's clear that Canon is doing little beside spewing new bodies with minor upgrades to keep people upgrading and buying. They've released good sensors in most cases, but little else. Enough is enough. Their pricing structure vis-a-vis what they provide is so skewed it's ridiculous. After two 1D3's, my budget for a new 1Ds3 has been permanently shelved. Who in their right mind wants to pay $8k for a $5k camera (assuming you have the choice to skip it that is, and I do)? Nikon is providing feature on a $1700 camera Canon expects over 3x that price (100% VF and pro level AF are two examples).
I've owned four 5d bodies along side 1 series bodies, and while I thought it was novel when released, I found it strangely over priced. It's a 30d with a FF sensor.. nothing more.. I held the camera for 30 seconds and my gut said "not worth it". I love the IQ ( better than my 1Ds2) and think it's surpassed only by the 1D3 (and I'm told the 1Ds3). I'm not complaining about that and disagree with MR about the 5d IQ vs. the D700 at low ISO. I only have my own trained eyes to tell me the truth and don't have the necessary naivete to believe authors/web site that tells me I'm mistaken. As long as my eyes work, I'm going with Canon, especially in the studio. IQ aside, I like the 5d, but I have never loved it. It's a lower mid-level amateur camera with a good sensor. The rest of it is, well, not that good.... What can I say?
What Canon does is take features such as 100% VFs and make you pay $4500 for it (and then give you a cropped 1d3 sensor). They hit the AF in the head with a hammer before putting it in any non 1 series body; Nikon has reversed that trend. Canon cripples frame rates; Nikon is offering choice. Canon uses outdated Digic 3 processors (appeared 3 years ago in P&S cameras) in their $8k flagship and even have the gall to stick a crummy low res LCD on the back (give me a break on that one..). I actually had a Canon rep tell me the LCD was just as good as what Nikon was using (both cameras were in front of me). I stared at the guy, asked him if he was serious, and then walked away; it was clear I couldn't have an intelligent conversation with someone making that comment. Look at canon's UDMA support (if you can find it). The list continues; Canon is about over charging for features and always has been. Even my 20+ year old New F-1 lacked a 100% VF, while the F3 had it. The difference is that I've been willing to pay the freight in the past. I'm finally fed up and don't want to play the game anymore.
It's time Canon stepped up to the plate. They can do so much, but they are so cheap from a features perspective it's incredible. You may feel differently.