A few days ago I asked here whether I should get a 5DII or a Nikon D3X. You were pretty much in favor of the Nikon. I did not listen and got the Canon yesterday. By the way, it came from Adorama at much lower than the going price, + almost $200. worth of needed extras. Thanks, Adore. I did a shoot of a few hundred pictures today and would like to share my opinions about it vs. my Nikon D700. This will not be too positive for Nikon. I have gotten used to my D700 and like it better than when I got it. These are personal opinions, not based on digital expertise, which I do not have. They are simple impressions based on experience. The Canon is easier to use. The Nikon menu drives me crazy. Too many unnecessary options, so when you do need to do something, you can't find the control. The Canon is simpler, more sensitive and easier to use. The Canon focus is better. My Nikons (D90, too) do not focus accurately and quickly. The Canon is not perfect in this respect, but it is better. The exposure meter is more accurate on the Canon. I gave up on the Nikon meter because it regularly overexposed. I took to using a handheld Minolta flashmeter. The Canon meter is more accurate. I guess I could have used the Nikon meter by setting it to a higher speed, but did not bother. Lenses: I love the 85mm f1.2 Canon. Nothing comparable from Nikon. The best lenses overall are from Zeiss, for both. I always got poor results from the D700 when using autofocus and auto exposure. Both of these functions are accurate on the Canon. The anti shake feature of the Canon does indeed work. I may be able to go back to hand holding sometimes, with the 5D2. And of course, though both cameras have full sized sensors, the Canon has 20 megapixels vs 12 for the Nikon. Additionally, the Canon body is lighter. A very significant difference. Yo, Nikon, how come you are not competitive in this area?