OK, I'll reply then. Yes, I agree with most of what you said, perhaps with the exception of the 'built like tanks' bit - no, really neither of them are. The failure rate hasn't really to do with 'being built like tanks' but with detail failures of bits and pieces that have nothing to do with tank-like build but with component sourcing and QA. I think this is where Canon's iterative product policy pays dividends, even though Canon fans moan about it. There is rarely a Canon camera which is not just a development of the one before it, and so most of the designs and parts are thoroughly shaken down. Take for instance the D600 and 6D. The D600 is a brand new camera, every bit of it is new. The 6D is a rework of the 5DII, the design of which goes back to the EOS-30. Similarly, the D7000 was completely new. The D300 was not, it was mostly a D2X, and the 7D was mostly a 50D. Designing things that are completely new is always a risk. Sometimes it goes OK, but others it really doesn't. I think Nikon's other recent problem is that having had two plants destroyed, they are bringing new products to market before they are ready. In retrospect, Canon's delay on the 1D X was probably wise. If they had released it with bugs, it would have been a disaster.