>Canon did dominate many sporting events because Canon viewed
>heavily discounting their equipment to these organizations as
>a marketing cost.
...
>Canon also had slightly better low light performance and had
>IS super telephotos until the recent Nikon lens upgrades.

More than "slightly." Until the D3/D300, Canon kicked Nikon's butt in the high-ISO department. Sports shooters were mostly using Canon's 1.3-crop-factor bodies because they could crank the ISO up and get usable results under the lights in a stadium whereas they just could not do that with D2H and other Nikon 1.5-crop-factor bodies. Add, as you say, Canon's aggressiveness in updating their long tele designs. The dominance of white lenses on the sidelines is not just -- or even primarily -- due to marketing.

All of that is history, though.

>Frankly, NONE of my friends that shoot Nikon are thinking for
>switching to Canon, but several of my friends that shoot Canon
>( and Minolta and Pentax) are thinking for switching to Nikon.

Same here, except I don't actually know anyone shooting Minolta.

-- Jon
Wethersfield, CT, USA
Connecticut High School Sports Photos