Baja or DF?
Going to mexico for the first time and I'm basically narrowing it down to DF and Baja. DF would be the logical choice for a restaurant city, but I heard that Baja gives DF a run for its money. What city has the better alta cocina , tacos , and overall restaurants?
I don't think this is a fair question, it's kind of like asking a parent which child they like better :-)I'm also not sure that you're actually comparing apples to apples, more like apples to pears, related but different. And just for the record, Baja isn't a "city", it's a penninsula extending south from California. The primary cities for food are the corridor between Tijuana and Ensenada, the Valle de Guadalupe (which also isn't a city), and to a lesser extent Tecate and San Jose del Cabo in Baja Sur.
What is the purpose of your trip? Is it jus to eat, or do you plan/want to do other things? That could also determine where you'd be better off going.
I've eaten in both D.F. and Baja California and both are great.
re: Mariana in Baja
Your experience of Mexico would be totally different in these two places.
Mexico City is one of the biggest cities in the world, extremely cosmopolitan and also very accessible. The food ranges from out-of-this-world to not so much so, but your time here would be an unforgettable urban vacation.
The section of Baja California that DD mentioned up-thread is gorgeous, but in a desert-meets-the-sea kind of way. From tiny Tecate west to Ensenada is primarily desert; Ensenada is a mid-size port city. As DD mentioned, the corridor is the foodie destination.
IMHO, you'd have a better base experience in Mexico City. It's a fabulous place to learn the basics about the history and construction of Mexican food. On your next trip to Mexico, your time in Baja would teach you more about Mexico's newer cuisine. With the basics you have already learned in Mexico City you would be able to understand better what the new chefs are doing in Baja.
Just my opinion.