ejlatstl wrote:
1) Canon has a slight edge at higher ISO settings 800+ (Less Noise… etc)
2) Nikon has the best ‘constructed’ body in the D200
3) Nikon generally has better mid-range priced lenses
4) Canon has been the camera of choice for sports photography
5) Some Canon lenses are actually built by Sigma
6) Tamron lenses are generally a step up in quality from Sigma

#1: Canon has a three year advance over Nikon's sensor supplier - IE: Nikon can't even produce their own sensors - Sony supplies Nikon - I wouldn't buy from a company that can't produce the product.

#2: WHAT? I hope you are joking - No body is better than the Canon 1D series and no Nikon comes close. The weather and dust sealing is unmatched, and even lower class bodies are better sealed.

#3: I don't see this either, not that Nikon doesn't have nice glass, I don't see it better, but equal on midrange glass. - the advantage though is in AF speed, which goes to Canon.

#4: No doubt here - faster frame rates, bigger buffers, and faster AF

#5: and #6: Not sure where you got your information, Tamron is a huge leap down from Sigma. Sigma only makes the glass for a very select few cheaper Canon lenses and assembles them. The electronics are ALL Canon built and designed. The only Sigma lens I would suggest using is the 70-200 f2.8, but for real quality and speed I'd go with the Canon lens over it.
I had a couple Tamron lenses, but they wound up in the trash, they didn't come close to the worst Sigma lens. The $79 Canon 50mm f1.8 is a better lens than the $600 Tamron I had. Tamron has one lens that is worth using (I forget which one) but I won't use anything BUT Canon lenses as the off brand stuff does damage the Canon AF after time. I know, I had to get a body repaired because of a non Canon lens. $248 repair plus shipping each way.

JS