Here we go again - if you were starting over...

[tshort]

Inasmuch as I am starting "from scratch", in terms of building my 35 mm digital system, I am free to to choose either Nikon or Canon.  

All the buzz has been about Canon for quite a while, due to their full-frame sensor on their 1D series cameras, while Nikon has seemed to refuse to offer anything like that so far.  

Let us assume that at some stage that will change, and Nikon will in fact put out something with a full frame CMOS in it.

Forgetting ergos, menu systems, etc, if one were to consider only the quality of lenses each system has to offer, does anyone have any data or opinions based on experience that would make them lean more toward one than the other?  My gut keeps telling me that Nikon glass would be better.  

On the Canon side, I'm leaning toward the 20D as the "starter" camera, and building my lens selection around f/2.8 L zooms (16-35, 70-200), and maybe the odd prime (50 mm f/1.4).  My work is in portraits and documentary/street shooting, with the odd soccer or hockey game thrown in (kid shots - teleconverter).

I don't know as much about Nikon glass in terms of specific lenses, but I'd guess they have lenses that are comparably spec'd.  Question is, which would be the better platform, for the long haul?  Any thoughts??

[BryanHansel]

I'll bite.  I wouldn't forget ergonomics, etc...  Both systems have good lenses, and both systems have good cameras.  I'd go to a camera store if I were you, and handle the cameras.  Whichever camera you like the feel of, buy it.

For Nikon lenses, 12-24 DX, 24-120 VR, 70-200 VR, plus 1.7x.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I jumped in with the Canon 1Ds, and don't regret it a bit. I also have a 1D-MkII.

[BJL]

On the Canon side, I'm leaning toward the 20D as the "starter" camera, and building my lens selection around f/2.8 L zooms (16-35, 70-200), and maybe the odd prime (50 mm f/1.4).  My work is in portraits and documentary/street shooting, with the odd soccer or hockey game thrown in

In terms of your current needs for portaiture and such, if you want large apertures and low DOF, a Nikon with its 1.5x format factor has a slight advantage over the 20D with its smaller 1.6x, when both are used at the same f-stop. More importantly, the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX seems to give a lot more for the money than the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 when used with the 1.6x crop of the 20D.

For sports and telephoto reach, Nikon with the new Sony CMOS sensors seems headed towards offering higher resolution in DX format than Canon is offering in EF-S bodies: that higer res. (closer pixel spacing) allows shorter focal lengths and/or mor cropping to be used; shorter focal lengths then offer lower minimum f-stops ("faster" lenses), to weigh together with ISO speed in overall speed/noise comparisons.

But you might want to wait and see if Nikon does indeed release the much rumored "D200" with 10-12MP Sony CMOS sensor.

If instead you wish to hamper your current lens performance on the assumption of later changing to a different, larger format, then the 20D makes more sense.