I am a qualitative scholar that uses/has used NVivo, Dedoose, MAXQDA, and Atlas. I think which software you use is entirely dependent on what you want to do with it. Are you wanting the software to do the analysis for you (word counts/ word frequency / word proximity)? Are you wanting to code the data (themes, open coding, etc.)? I would say that I used NVivo for several recent projects that included organizational documents, video, audio, and transcripts. It worked well to code everything. I used Dedoose for my dissertation which was great as my advisor took a job across the country during my final year and is web based (the UI for Dedoose is awful though).

I just wanted to clarify a point that's usually overlooked - none of the qualitative software discussed here (nVivo, Atlas.ti, Maxda, dedoose. nudist) actually "analyze" the data for you in the way that quantitative software does. They are more tools for systematically organizing, coding, annotating, visualizing, etc. In essence, you are still doing the analysis yourself, just using the software for assistance in managing and exploring the data. This chart provides a good (though slightly outdated) comparison of what each of the QDA programs are better suited for, depending on what kind of data you're analyzing, what you want to do with it, how much time you have to learn the software, etc: http://website.education.wisc.edu/qdatools/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Software-Comparison.pdf.  In my experience nVivo is most widely used; though it's relatively pricey - there are some open-source packages too. (For quantitative analysis of qualitative data, regressions etc, if you're even interested in doing those - and a lot of people explicitly are not -  you would  probably be best off learning R).