I have to agree on the 'build quality' issue with Canons vs. Nikons at the consumer level. I've had an EOS 630 and an EOS A2 35mm bodies for a fairly good run in the photojournalism world, and have sampled several others from the Elan series (35mm) to various flavors of digital Rebels. The only one that didn't suffer from the 'crunchies' was the EOS 630, the most solidly built one of the lot. Every Nikon I tried just felt more solid, and now that I have my first DSLR, a D50, the same applies. I'd have to get up to the Canon 20D level to match the 'feel' of finish and balance of Nikon's entry level DSLR camera. I really wanted, still do, the 20D, or even moreso, the 5D, but just can't spare the money. I got my D50 with kit lens for $489 reconditioned with 5 year extended warranty for $60 extra. Figured I'd take a shot. I'm not disappointed with the build quality of the body (the lens is another matter... but not unlike Canon's 'kit' lens as well..) So, build quality is great. But, control placement, etc., eyepoint information and all the other things aren't nearly as natural to me. Could just be all the years using Canon, but I think Canon's got the 'driver's' setup all figured out for 'on-the-fly' decision making. I fumble around more, and some things just seem backward. But I realize anyone switching from Nikon to Canon might just have the exact same issues... I'm sure I'll get more intuitive with this D50 after awhile.
Ergonomically, I still love, and prefer... the way the EOS system cameras handle, especially the A2 with vertical grip attached. The bigger mount when they went autofocus did away with any mechanical linkage between body and lens, unlike Nikon until much later. All my lenses back in '94 were Ultrasonic, so autofocus was a strong Canon advantage back then (I had a friend who wore out the little lens focus actuating cam on his N90, which also rounded out the slot on his Nikkor 85mm f1.8 prime lense. Then, you could hear it stripping out and slipping... yikes! Pretty expensive problem. Yet, my D50 still has that mechanical cam, and some aftermarket lenses for Nikon mount still use that.)
By the way, adding the vertical grip to the A2 made the camera feel much more solid, and it wound up being a very reliable workhorse, more rugged than it first appeared. A fast handling camera (A2, 5 fps) that I could run through various settings on the fly with ease, and could reload in less than 5 seconds. I liked that I could set it up to leave the film leader exposed after rewind, so I could write a note on the back of it, and fold/crease to tell me it had been shot, and maybe even shoot half a roll, and then rewind, load some different film, and later go back and use the rest of the half shot roll. Oh yeah, the days of processing my own b/w and getting my color processed uncut for about a buck and a half. Light table editing with high quality loupe, and scanning... a whole different world from images on CF or SD cards. To think, I used to put a great deal of thought into which film I'd be using for different situations, and manners of processing for pushing, etc were all things that made it fun, and a bit more 'technical' than shooting digital. In the end, there is a huge part of the experience of photography which is being abandoned with pure digital, a part I really enjoyed, which separated the serious photographers from snapshooters.
Anyway - back on topic. Nikon and Canon, two great companies with a great rivalry over the years. I have great respect for both of them. And Pentax, Fujinon and Olympus, of which I had mechanical SLRs from each (screw-mount Spotmatic, Fujinon ST-801, and Olympus OM-1.)
I don't think the Rebel XT is horrid!
