If you want to shoot primes, get a Canon. If you absolutely need the max weatherproofing and drive speed, sure the 1-series is tops. But, unless you're shooting F1 races or in the Sahara, it's probably overkill. The EOS 3 is a very nice body. ECF is a fantastic feature, and puts it ahead of the EOS1 for me. I started with a 1n, and now have an EOS3.
I'm pretty objective, though. I've always liked Nikon film bodies, so i've had a bunch of them, including the F100 and F6. F100 first, then i moved 'up' to an F6, and then back to an F100. The 100 is just more practical. I don't have to worry about scuffing a $1300 body, i don't have to baby the LCD on the back panel.... The F100 is 95% of the F6, and that extra 5% i don't miss at all. It's not like the 100 is a compromise. It's already built to pro standards. The 6 is just that much more refined, but unless you had both in-hand at the same time, you wouldn't find a reason to have an F6.
I used to have the Contax N1. It's been quite a while, so my recollection is sketchy. I didn't have it long, though. Not because i didn't like it, but probably because that was a stage at which i had too many systems, and couldn't justify keeping the N while i already had an EOS system.
The N1 is rather large. The lenses are also large.... Oh, i just remembered - i got out of the Contax AF cameras because they never had plans to release a 28 or 35mm prime. That was sorta essential for me. I believe they always rationalized it by saying the zoom performed better than other manufacturers' primes, but i didn't care for the size and weight, nor speed.
N1 AF speed is not up to EOS/Nikon standards. It's not bad, but i would want a Canon or Nikon if AF speed and frame rate were important. I had two lenses- the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4. Both were quite nice, but again - not better than the Canon 50/1.4 and 85L i had at the time.
So.... If you are dedicated to primes, Canon's 85s (both of them) are better than Nikon's. Canon's 50s - all three - are better than Nikon's, although i just got the Nikon 50/1.8G for my F100/FE2 and haven't seen test film yet. Canon offers the fantastic 35L, and very good 35/2. They have a 28/1.8 and 28/2.8. They have a 24L and a 24/2.8.... Nikon doesn't have that range, and what they do offer doesn't perform as well with regard to bokeh - my two cents.
Not sure, at all, why you would question the Canon glass. From what i've read, Nikon's zooms may be better in the wide range, but Canon's primes have always been tops. And, if you like the longer lenses, they have a fantastic 100 Macro, and legendary 135L. Canon just does bokeh MUCH better. That's why 95% of fashion shooters use them....
Optionally, in the 50 and 85mm ranges if bokeh is important, Sigma makes very nice lenses. I've had the 50/1.4 and will probably buy another, and they work with Nikon and Canon. The only caveat is that the Sigma 50 i had (for Canon) performed best only when i could dial in AF compensation on my 5DMkII. When i bought one for the Nikon F100, it was softer than a chocolate teapot. I had to return it. I don't think i would chance one on a film body, unless i knew a technician who could calibrate it.
