I bought a Nikon N80 back in the early 1990s and have been a serious amateur Nikon user ever since. In the Digital Era I've graduated only up to the D7000, but recently had a revelation/crisis that convinced me to look closely at my backup body as a primary. The extra size and weight of the D7000 just didn't feel worth it all of a sudden and I'm ready to upgrade. I found that the D3100 was equal to the D7000 in some ways and superior in enough to convince me to sell the D7000. Until it occurred to me that the D3100 won't support AF on my 80-200/2.8 or 80-400 VR. After looking in to the possibilities, I found that ignoring Canon for 25 years may have been a mistake. While the DSLR bodies are too similar to make a difference (to me), the lenses are quite attractive. While the medium telephoto zooms are very close to Nikon's versions, the sub-$300 10-18mm is really attractive. Shooting travel documentation is not very demanding as my output is usually my HDTV or prints on canvas. I have found that even my older D70 images are adequate (to my eye) for prints in my office and home. The most demanding work I do is indoor tennis where the 80-200/2.8 really shines. Sharpness is good enough for me at ISO 2200 on a monopod. I don't see myself dropping $2K on the 100-400 IS II, but considering what I've been happy with in the past several years, I wonder if a consumer zoom like the 55-250 STM, the 70-300 IS or the 70-200/4 with a DSLR body that produces image quality two stops faster than my generations old D7000 might do the trick.