B&W vs Martin Logan

I currently have Martin Logan Odessey/Theater/Aerius in my system with Krell amplification and processing. I'm considering a change. I've heard many good things about B&W. Could someone with experience with both tell me the pros and cons of each. If I go with the B&W it will be the nautilus 802's or the 800's for my main speakers, and 805's for the rear of our theater. My listening is about 60% theater and 40% 2 channel. Thanks for the advice.
Boy.....You are really talking about two completely different animals here. They are both nice speaker lines, so why do you want to switch?

The most obvious difference is the appearance. Other than that I would think the Martin Logan's are somewhat more transparent for 2 channel audio; and the B&W's have more power and dynamics for those movie soundtracks.

Since we are talking home theater, George Lucas uses Nautilus 802's in his studio, if that helps you decide. Lucas uses the Nautilus 802 for all surround channels (5).

I wouldn't use George Lucas as a guide for speaker buying, we all know he can't write/direct, so why would you think he can hear?

Kevin...Unless you can write and direct better than Lucas, what does it say about your hearing??
This are both good speakers, totally different,My own
preference are The logans for both music and HT,Dont
get me wrong the 802's are really excellent,If you
like more dynamic the way to go.My friend likes the
N802 than my quest before they were rewired with
siltech, after the modification. He likes my logan
better.Either way you will have a good speaker.
The only thing I can tell you is that I have B&W CN4's with a yamaha RX-v3000 intergrated amp. I had heard alot of good things about Krell amps and went to audition them... the 250, 300, and 500 Krell amps were hooked up to 2500/pr Martin logans and another pair of Martin Logans which were a much more expensive (don't remember the price but I remember the electrostatic panels)...2 channel through a switchboard. The krell 500watts/channel was $5000.00 It blew me away when I realized (or felt) that my system sounded alot better... I let it slip to the salesman, not realizing I was talking to myself out loud... but it didn't matter, I had bought my system there anyway. My system was $2500.00... the price of any one component. I'm sure there is a price range where the Martin Logans will start to sound better but there are higher priced B&W's also.
I would say that music preference would factor in alot. If you like rock or pop...you may enjoy the punch that cones can provide. I have heard Logans in every imaginable set-up with subs and w/o...and they never had that punch I wanted while listening to bands like Tool, Pearl Jam, Supersuckers, etc. However, when I threw my classical and vocal collection at them, they were mind blowing.
I just compared the 802s and the ML Ascents head-to-head today. Troutki's comments here are right on. I preferred the ML myself for two-channel listening, especially for female vocals. Really mind-blowing presence and soundstage. An "oh wow" experience. Mediocre bass, however.

The N802 sounds very good too, like a really good speaker, warm, natural, a little too rich in the bass for my taste. Would certainly be better for home theatre and for rock music.

Tough choice...
Why not add the Martin Logan Descent sub to your system for extra body?
B&W CM4's above..sorry
The signature 800 is a huge improvement over the N802. I can't speak for the Martin Logan's, I've never been a fan. I have had N802's in a Krell system and never warmed up to the sound. They lacked bass and I could never tame the tweeter. I sold them. I would take the 800's any day but I went with WP 7's and am very happy.