As a total SLR noob and having very little idea about the technical aspects of photography, yesterday I had my hands on a D200, D300, D7000, 60D and a 7D. My intended application, initially at least, is action/sports and later this year skiing/boarding in Italy for the season. With that in mind, I was concerned with build/weather sealing and burst/buffer size, as well as just IQ. FX is of no interest at the moment (pending the D600 and that'll probably be too expensive anyway). And it seems to me that IQ is more-or-less the same between 5100 and 7000 and probably 7D and even 650D these days. So really, if I go for the top small-sensor bodies, I'm paying for extra features I don't yet appreciate, speed and durability. Agree or disagree at this point (please ), but that's how I see it currently. Having handled the D7000 and 7D in more detail, I like both and hilariously there doesn't appear to be much of a difference in terms of ergonomics and control. Unlike the older Nikons, the D7000 looks a lot more Canonesque. Anyway, I think ultimately price will be my deciding factor as either camera basically does what I want. I'm a little concerned about the buffer on the D7000, but I would have to learn to get over that if it was really WAY cheaper. It also offers other advantages. So assuming it's price, lenses are a big factor. I'm thinking I want no more than three ideally: 1) Telezoom with VR/IS 2) Prime f1.8 (ish) at 35/40/50 3) Possibly an ultrawide zoom for landscapes and creative stuff. Is there an advantage in terms of optical quality/price ratio for either brand? I notice that Canon do an L 70-200 in f4 at half the weight and price of the 2.8 and that appeals. Nikon have nothing in that regard. But it also seems that Nikon's 70-300 VR is legendarily good for a cheaper lens and the Canon equivalent is not. What say you, oh wise forumites?