Is Nikon really better?

I think we've all heard people say that Canon is better for teles and Nikon is better with wide angles - but is that really true?

Hypothetically if I had a 1Ds or the 5D along with the 16-35mm f/2.8, would Nikon be able to beat that in IQ and convenience? Or does it mean that Nikon has better wide angles for the same price/cheaper than Canons?

It really doesn't matter. Both will deliever stellar images based on the photographer.

Generally no, they're not 'better', although for a more concise answer you need to ask: better at what?

The Canon wide issue is a myth. DX lenses are afflicted with the same 'problems' for cropped sensors as EF lenses have with FF.

And with Canon, you have a much wider choice of wide-angle lenses.

You can compare www.photodo.com MTF measurements of some lenses that are in their database, the differences between Canon and Nikon WA available seemed small.

As has been said before however, its the photographer that makes the picture, not the equipment.

Nikon does have good glass but their ccd sensors are slugish were as canon's cmos sensors are much faster making it a great camera for long range tele work.

Nikon is fast closing the sensor gap - the new D200/ D80 offerings have pretty much eliminated the old noise problem, and both of these cameras will push Canon to do better.

In terms of glass, both systems have soem excellent lenses. It is perhaps a bit harder to tell which are the good Nikon lenses - except perhaps by price - but IMO they cost more for same - just look at what their macro lens costs - the 100mm one ( or is it 105, all these noink products look the same to me... )

I really don't think it matters which system you use. i use Canon because I always have. there was nothing rational in going with a n Eos DSLR - even all the consumer glass I brought over from my film Eos has been upgraded and replaced ( thanks to POTN!) so the old excuse of compatibility with your lens collection , in retrospect, was pointless.

But I have no regrets at all. Canon all the way!

steved110 wrote in post #2279936
Nikon is fast closing the sensor gap - the new D200/ D80 offerings have pretty much eliminated the old noise problem

The D80 perhaps, but the D200 in no way manages this - it's the very reason I switched from D2x and D200's to 5D's. The only Nikons I've used and seen that does offer good high ISO shots are the D50 and D2Hs.

The D80 looks superficially ok, but suffers the same overly-aggressive NR as the D200, resulting in smeary images and loss of fine detail.

steved110 wrote in post #2279936
Nikon is fast closing the sensor gap - the new D200/ D80 offerings have pretty much eliminated the old noise problem, and both of these cameras will push Canon to do better.

Where have you been? The d200 is quite noisey at high iso. They had a big problem when it first came out almost a year ago. The 5D is still 2 stops cleaner iso than the d200 above iso400

illy wrote in post #2279764
I think we've all heard people say that Canon is better for teles and Nikon is better with wide angles - but is that really true?

Hypothetically if I had a 1Ds or the 5D along with the 16-35mm f/2.8, would Nikon be able to beat that in IQ and convenience? Or does it mean that Nikon has better wide angles for the same price/cheaper than Canons?

The the purposes of discussion, let us assume the allegation is true. So what does that mean...
that we all buy Nikon body with WA lenses, and
carry that along with our Canon body and tele lenses, but
that we also have WA for the Canon that is inferior to the Nikon but
at least allows us to shoot WA in low light settings with high ISO setting on the Canon due to its low noise?