Hey no fair! I go shopping in my 911 everyday! And I also think the D70 is a hell of a body. You know it also gets to the question of how dumb the user is expected to be. Once we decide on a piece of equipment perhaps it might be a good idea to learn its ins & outs thoroughly before blasting it for things that it can't do easily. Hey guys remember when we were actually expected to know what f11 at 1/250 actually meant & that round thing on the lens - what's it called, the focusing ring - was used for. Maybe it's all becoming too damn "easy." Kind of like doing for photography what's been done for music. Everybody's not only a composer but a photographer too.

Yeah, the D50 would've had much more of an impact if it sold for about $800 instead.

I agree that Canon's lineup is mature but, if you look closely, so is Nikon's.

For the asking price, the D70 is a really sweet camera. It's definitely not a pro camera, but at least it handles like one (the Rebel XT handles more like a prosumer digicam).

The D70 certainly can't claim to be better than a 20D but, considering its lower price, comes pretty close. The D50 doesn't cost much less than a D70, but it isn't much less of a camera either - it retains all of the D70's more important features while leaving out stuff like the commander mode for external Speedlights (features which beginners aren't likely to use). To me, Nikon always produces the best camera they can for a given budget.

The problem with Canon is that they're always afraid that their lower-end DSLRs would compete with their higher-end ones. It makes marketing sense, but isn't good for the consumer. The Rebel/300D was a dumbed-down 10D while the Rebel XT/350D is way too small for most people and handles poorly - much worse than a 20D. For me, the Canon DSLR range only really gets serious with the 20D, while the Nikon D50 is already a good-handling feature-packed DSLR. I'm sure you'll disagree, it really does seem as if Canon intentionally cripples their lower-end DSLRs - something that Nikon never does.

The Nikon D2H is a very specialised tool (for those who don't know, it actually uses a Nikon-made LBCAST JFET sensor). It's designed for photojournalists / sports photographers who need speed above everything else. The 4-megapixels will not be enough for your best friend's wedding, but it's more than enough for a front page newspaper article. Plus, it's a lot easier to deal with large numbers of 4-MP pictures (smaller file sizes) compared to 8- or 12-MP ones. The D2H was designed for this sort of workflow and does it very well. If you need the extra megapixels, you can opt for a D2X instead.

As far as lenses are concerned, all Nikon F-mount lenses are built to a standard (except for the current 70-300G and ED lens, which is rubbish). Plus, my D70 will still work with older Nikkors from the 1980's, while my collection of FD lenses (used with older film SLRs like the AE-1) can't work with my 300D.

Then, there's also the issue of digital lenses. At least Nikon has made up its mind and stuck to the DX format for all its DSLRs - with standardised sensors and lens mounts.

Canon DSLRs come with sensors of all sorts of sizes, the EF-S lens you bought for your 20D (or its successor) will never work with your 1Ds Mk II.

Perhaps the only missing link in the Nikon DSLR lineup is a replacement for the outdated D100.