After researching for some time, I began to lean towards purchasing the Nikon d300 over the Canon 40D. Canon glass is more familiar to me and I assumed the price between the two would be somewhat equal. To my surprise, the Nikon glass is much more expensive. Unless, I'm not seeing the Nikon equivalent? For instance, at some point, the perfect setup for me would be: Canon 10-22 $674.95 24-70L 2.8 $1059.95 70-200L IS 2.8 $1659.95 Total: $3394.85 Nikon 12-24 $919.95 24-70 2.8 $1699.95 70-200 2.8 VR $1639.95 Total: $4259.85 Difference, $865.00 or 21%. Add the $500 extra for the Nikon body and it equals $1365.00 extra for the Nikon setup. Am I seeing something wrong, or is this pretty much standard issue for Nikon gear? I don't think the D300 is worth $1365 over the 40D?