Super job Rob, I could have guessed you would join in.
My point in doing this was not from a Canon v Nikon or any other brand, but to point out that different models within a single brand could have different performance. I wondered how long it would take for someone to read the exif and say " not a level playing field as D2X used Multicam 2000 a/f system". So consider it as a bit of bait to encourage discussion.
Mikes post refers to Andy Rouse and his choice of Canon for its better A/F. In this case I am sure he made that decision using comprarable pro models and his A/F requirements would be totally different from mine and no doubt some other folk. I am assuming within the Canon range pro bodies have better A/F systems than budget models which could also skew that particular comment. Your photographic style and budget has to be similar for his choice to be relavent.
I know from the Nikon range the D2X has a vastly superior A/F system to the D100. So any comparison is a waste of time. Does this make the D100 a poor camera choice ( yes I know its obsolete ), the answer depends on the type of photography you do. For birds and low light action then others would do a lot better. Its A/F response could also be improved by spending a bucket load of cash on f2.8 lenses as opposed to my f4.5 - f5.6 kit. For Landscape or studio then it will stand up well when compared to any of todays 6 - 8 cameras. Its downfall for me is no metering with M/F lenses ( cannot afford all the A/F kit ), and its by todays standards relatively dim viewfinder ( penta mirror design ) important when using m/f lenses.
Don