"Canon" ... that's my answer when asked what gear I use. For some reason, many people want more details (as if the image is special because of the camera/lens used). It's amazing how many photographers are fixated on the gear (and endlessly discussing it on Internet forums). I must admit that I like new kit and technology, but I've long grown past the point where I have the time and inclination to debate it (or watch others debate it).
The camera is just a tool. The more expensive gear might offer higher resolution and better image quality, but it doesn't compose better shots. Of course the higher end kit does generally handle better and, for something like moving horses, the auto-focus doesn't miss as often - that means more good shots. So, the high-end gear might make it easier to get some shots, but it doesn't actually make more striking photographs (pixel-peeping doesn't count).
I made a choice of Canon when I first bought a dSLR (the competing Nikon offering back then wasn't as appealing). For anyone with a reasonable investment in gear, I can't see any sensible justification to even consider changing brand (and there isn't any point in shouting about it in forums).
It's the same with computers. I'm now switching to a Mac laptop - mainly because I've outgrown my current Dell Windows laptop and the Macbook looks to be the right tool to do what I need. Just like camera gear, so many people have their small-minded biases. When I spend most of my time in e-mail/browser/Lightroom/Photoshop, it really doesn't matter what's under the hood (as long as it just does the job). I'll still use Windows (I can't see me justifying the funds to replace my desktop PC with a Mac any time soon!) and I run a mixed Windows/UNIX server infrastructure.
Feel free to spend all your time in web forums, but I'd rather spend my time taking photos.