All in all, seems to me a bit of picking small differences to rationalize a larger purchase. I’m a Nikon guy who thinks both systems are great. IMO, user interface differences outweigh a lens gap which seems temporary at best. After all, Nikon can point out that while the iterations of the Canon 50 1.4 were good for their time, tests now show that the Nikon 1.4G has it beat optically, esp. in corner sharpness—the photographer notes that the bokeh of all SLR 50/1.4’s is obvious and atrocious even to non-photographers so lets not even go there. The same performance gap be said for the 24-70/2.8 range and the 70-200 2.8 IS/VR performance (until this month, assuming the 70-200 2.8 IS II is anything like Nikon’s). And there was a while there was no Canon 14-24 2.8 or 200 2.0 (though that isn’t true now).

Seems to me gains of this sort are temporary for both Nikon and Canon. Today one might be talking about how Nikon makes great PC-E lenses only to be totally destroyed by Canon’s AF offerings a year later.

Buy the camera you like, but be careful not to diss the other brands, because they’ll leapfrog you.