I hear variations on this a lot. People have selective memories, "Yup, Nikon's ain't like they usta-be. Time was when the Nikon name meant sumpthin'. They only built the highest quality camer's back then."
Well they built the Nikon F back then and they build the Nikon F6 now. Cameras built like tanks. However, back when they were building the F, F2, F3, F4, and F5 until now, There was the Nikkorex and the Nikkormat and the EL, and the FE, EM and a bunch of point and shoots, aimed at the snapshooter, amateur and enthusiast, covering the whole spectrum of prices, and with lenses that were "affordable" rather than excellent as well as those that were truly excellent.
Camera companies are not run by enthusiasts - at least not the ones that stay in business. Leitz runs on a good bit of arrogance, but they too have built P&S as well as having built the CL and CLE and a few digitals. A few years ago, they announced a digital back for their SLRs, and it is due to ship "real soon, now", if Leitz manages to stay in business. They also market a Panasonic digital under their own name that is identical mechanically and electronically, differing only in a slightly different contour here and there and the red dot that says Leica. When it hit the market it was hundreds of dollars more than its Panasonic twin - very expensive dot. They have maintained this arrogance until they are at the point of being the next camera company likely to cease business.
Ah, but the Leica QUALITY! That will bring them through.
No. Word has been going around among the few of us that actually shoot with the things rather than put them in dust-proof cases and brag about them, to buy only from dealers who will be patient while you return lens after lens, trying to find one that is acceptably sharp. Evidently, they have come to the conclusion that they are building for collectors who will never actually use them, so quality does not matter as long as the finish is nice. Nikon did have a lot to worry about from Leica decades back, but Nikon has the edge now.
A couple of decades back, Canon decided to challenge Nikon as the 800 pound gorilla, and has done a very good job of it. While Leica has ignored Contax, in spite of them making better cameras and lenses for less money - and beating Leica to go out of business as well - Nikon has responded by maintaining the high quality of their flagship cameras and lenses.
And yes, if you want to focus and set your own, there are still fully mechanical lenses. The great lenses are no remainder counter-bargains - you pay for what you get. Price them. Sure there are many inexpensive manual Nikon lenses, but they were built for the EM, FE and the Nikkormats. A totally manual 28mm PC-Nikkor is about the same price now as it was in the early 1980s when I bought mine. It does not even have an automatic diaphragm that stops down when the shutter is tripped.
Nikon like Canon - but no other camera maker - builds the whole spectrum from cameras aimed at the folks who bring in a film with a Christmas tree on each end of the roll and vacation shots in the middle, to cameras for the working photographer who may go through several hundred frames every day. Buy a bottom of the line camera as a student and an excellent lens or two, and the lens will work on every subsequent camera as you move up the food chain of photography. However, if you want a fine camera body and a cheap, crappy lens, well you can get that too, should you be so stupid.
The advantage goes to the company that builds the right combination of features and offers the lenses and accessories YOU need for the photographic tasks you do. Nikon has only lost that advantage if you have needs that only Canon can meet. They don't offer absolutely parallel lines, specially with lenses. In some cases, neither company has been able to meet my needs on a specific, so I go wherever I must - superwide medium-format, panoramic, etc. However, both companies offer a wide range of special purpose optics, with Nikon having a bit of a lead there for the most part.
Again it is a matter of the buyer's need. Depending upon the need, either company may be in, or either company out, once I have defined the goals and the necessary route to achieve them. In fact, I do have both Canon and Nikon cameras and lenses. I mostly use a Canon lens on my Leica. Each was bought - not because of the maker's edge - but for the edge it gave me!!! That is the only thing that counts.
Yeah, everyone offers a range of low priced, slow and marginal zoom lenses at prices that beginners can afford, and third party suppliers offer them even cheaper. That is not where the edge is. The edge is with the super-fast, the superlong, the superwide, the macro lenses, the perspective control lenses, and there Nikon glass will stand up to anyone. However if you need tilt as well as shift, then you go to Canon, or better, get a view camera.
As per dSLRs, today in some cases, Canon has the edge unless you are into telephotography, in which case Nikon is way out ahead. All that can change in a month or two when everyone announces their new toys at PMA. R&D in digital cameras is extremely volatile. Furthermore, the camera-makes are all moving toward mirrorless cameras within the coming years.
The Sony R1 was the opening round to be fired. With no mirror and a large sensor, lenses can be optimized for use with sensors. In the R1, the rear element is nearly in contact with the sensor, something that the archaic mirror prohibits. Super-wide lenses no longer will need to be retrofocus inverted teles to clear the mirror and spectacular formulas like the SuperAngulon can be adapted to digital.
Five years from now, the whole face of the camera market will have changed beyond recognition today. Who has the edge, depends a lot on how the technology progresses during that time. Nikon traditionally takes a somewhat less flambouyant approach than Canon, and that may either serve them well or badly. There will certainly be a couple more old-line camera makers out of business and the consumer electronics firms may dominate. There is simply no way to predict.
Those still making the dSLR design, I expect will put most of their emphasis on digital and optical design. Mechanical robustness is becoming meaningless with any digital camera. Even the most poorly constructed camera is hopelessly outmoded before it is worn out. The edge will go the one which produces the smoothest gradients, with the least noise at the highest ISO settings, with the sharpest lenses that can be specifically designed for sensors. None of the technology we shoot with today, may still be in service five years hence. With the great boom in digital cameras, I expect that designers and fabs everywhere are working for new sensor technology, faster and smarter focus and exposure devices, faster processing and storage, bigger buffers, bigger and brighter monitors, and so on.
Between the current Nikon digital and the last one, RAW quality has taken a quantum leap, hot pixels in long exposures have disappeared, chromatic abberation has disappeared and live histograms, bright views of dim venues and projected grid lines have appeared. Lag is too short to be noticed. With ED glass, all in-camera sharpening has been turned off, and very little in comparison is used in processing. None to compensate for the glass, just enough to balance the inherent unsharpness of the Beyer mosic sensor.
Nikon has supplied the past three digital cameras, because they fit most closely with the photography I am currently doing. So I guess that gives them the edge - for now. However, the next one could well be a Canon, a Sony or a Panasonic - or any other brand that gives me the edge I want. Then I might be back to Nikon again in a couple of years. The camera makers are just learning the digital trade, but the variety is immense none the less. Nikon just happened to build the camera I wanted - that is the only thing that counts.
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504