>>3017450>betterEconomically, there's no debate at all. Canon wins on price+performance for 1st party.
Nikon lenses are overpriced compared to Canon.
You have to pay hundreds/thousands more to get the same quality lens collection.
Common example, 70-200mm F2.8 stabilized, $1949 on amazon for canon, $2797 lowest for nikon. And reviewers have compared them and found the canon telephotos are better lenses, the nikon 70-200 suffers from excessive focus-breathing so ended up behaving more like a 70-150mm even at $800-900 higher price.
Resale is also easier on canon and finding good deals on used canon lenses for even Bigger discounts is also easier, due to Canon having #1 market share of all digital photographers. Market of scale at work.
The counter-point is that while canon has better lenses, most tests have current generation nikon bodies as better performance for the money.
At the immediate present, both systems are essentially equal.
Though if the landscape shakes up, I see it only going downhill for Nikon. (To benefit of either Sony or Canon)
Nikon doesn't make its own sensors, it just sucks at Sony's tit.
Sony could cock-block them next gen when Nikon needs new hardware and nikon would lose its entire strength as it already loses to canon on lenses.
Or Sony could decide to sell the exact same sensor to Canon and suddenly the traditional dslr fight is again losing for nikon.
Just interesting to think about, either one will still be good enough for 99% of photogs.
