What would you rather have: a camera that lets you micro-adjust the point of focus for each lens in your arsonal, or a camera that comes factory-calibrated, period? A camera that lets you adjust the JPEG color rendering to your taste or one that produces what most people agree to be excellent color right out of the box? A camera that lets you adjust the white balance or one that does a marvellous job when set to auto-white balance?
A year or so ago I would have preferred the more adjustable camera. Now I'm not so sure. One of the reasons--although certainly not the main one--I bought my Nikon D7000 was because it has the forementioned micro-focus adjustment feature. I never thought I'd need it; and in fact, as long as I was using my older Nikkor lenses (a 35mm f/2D, 50mm f/1.8 AIS, and 85mm f/2 AIS) the focus was spot-on.
That all changed when I bought a new 50mm f/1.8G. It took me months to discover that either it or the camera was backfocusing, and badly. I had to dial in -10 units of compensation to get accurate focus. The good news was that I could do this without having to send the camera and lens in for warranty repairs or calibration. The bad news is that it was necessary. In effect, Nikon or any other camera manufacturer that includes this "feature" can get away with sloppy quality control because it's now the user's responsibility to properly calibrate the focus for each lens.
Even without double-clicking on this image, you should be able to see that the focus is on the basket of raspberries in the foreground, which is exactly where I wanted it and exactly what I got, with no need for micro-adjustment.
I would rather have a camera and lens system that doesn't need calibration. That was certainly the case with the Canon EOS 5D Mark III I used this summer. As one would expect with a camera that retails for around $2800 body only and has a 61-point AF system, the 5D Mark III's AF accuracy was consistently excellent, regardless of whether I was using old lenses or new, with fast apertures or slow, in bright light or low.
And lest you think this is a slam at Nikon, I also experienced exceptional AF speed and accuracy with the Nikon V1. There's probably a much larger tolerance for error between the V1's 1-inch sensor and the APS-sized sensor used in the D7000. Even so, it's disappointing when the AF in a $1000 camera underperforms the AF in a (now) $400 camera.
The point isn't really the comparisons. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the full-frame EOS 5D Mark III is a much better camera than the less expensive Nikon D7000 and makes the Nikon V1 look like no more than a well-designed toy. My point is that I would take "excellent right out of the box" over "adjustable to your heart's content" any day. Would you, and if not, why?