Canon v. Nikon (ding-ding): Battle of the FF sensors

Ok, so that's a really lame title, but since you're reading this I obviously got your attention.  Now's the time to say that this really isn't going to be a Nikon vs. Canon post, but is instead my thoughts on why I chose to stay with one brand over the other. I really love having a full frame, 35mm sized, digital camera so that I can have a real wide-angle view.  I realize that Canon and Nikon are not the only two camera manufacturers to release full-frame cameras, but I narrowed my search to these two brands because of the wide availability of lenses for rent. When I went about selecting a full-frame camera, what did I want in my camera?  How important was each want?  

High ISO ability:

First and foremost, I love the high ISO image quality.  This point has been praised throughout the photographic community with both the Nikon D3 and D700 which have basically the same image quality.  This is important for me because my first real involvement with the photographic community was with working photojournalist who value high ISO because of the varied lighting conditions and I can speak from experience that the IQ is noticeable from the time you first open the file on your screen.  While at one point I would value high ISO as being a top selling point, with my current photographic pursuits, wildlife, nature, and fine art, this really isn't that important to me.  I like knowing I have the ISO there, but I keep my camera as close to base as possible for the highest image quality available.  If I just wanted the ISO, I probably would have definitely gone for the Nikon.

Megapixels/Maximum Print Size

Ok, before anyone wants to start talking about how we don't need the number of megapixels that we have, I just want to say, "I'm only interested in the number of megapixels as it relates to the print sizes I can produce without up-rezzing my files."  The clear winner in this category is the Canon 5D Mark II, a 21 megapixel, prosumer grade camera.  So why did I choose the Canon 5DII instead of the Nikon D3x(24mp) or the Canon 1Ds Mark III(21mp)?  The Canon 5D Mark II provides the best value for the maximum print size.  Of course the lenses one uses plays a major role in effectively using all of the megapixels.  I primarily use Canon "L" lenses.  I'm a big fan of their image quality and their build quality.  I feel like I don't have to baby the lens because I'm going to chip the plastic case.  With an "L" lens I know that it's going to take the abuse and still produce great images.  So, for my purposes, I chose to Canon 5D Mark II as the winner in the megapixel/maximum print size area.

Autofocus

I've shot sports and so I know the importance of lightning fast autofocus ability.  I've had the opportunity to shoot various sporting games with a Canon 1D series camera which has Canon's best autofocus available.  I have used Canon's autofocus system for several years and am therefore slightly biased towards that system.  For the best (most usable for me) autofocus system I would choose the Canon 1Ds Mark III.  Although I prefer the Canon system, I really like Nikon's decision to use the same autofocus system in the D3 and D700 (as well as the D300, although this is a crop factor camera).

There are several other factors that can be compared to determine the best camera, but for me this was sufficient for me to make a decision.  Since my photographic interests include nature, wildlife, and fine art, ISO was not a major concern.  My main concern ended up being the largest size print I can make from my files without having to result to up-rezzing program such as "Genuine Fractals."  It was for that reason that I decided on the Canon 5D Mark II.  While it has the same number of pictures as the 1Ds Mark III, it is less expensive, it smaller, and is a state of the art camera.

I hope this article gave you an insight into my processing of selecting a camera.  What do you consider the most important when selecting your next camera?