Nikon and Canon both make great cameras. hold them in your hand and see what feels better. I personally think canons kit lens sucks, feels like flimsy plastic while Nikons is super smooth. Other than the Canon Kit lens both are great & make fantastic lenses. Canon has a really nice 100mm macro lens which is more much more affordable than Nikons.
IMHO you can't judge the cameras by posted pictures. good pictures are the product of good use of a camera. I'm a newbie - folks who know how to work WITH the camera can take better pictures than what I posted with a 1st generation DSLR.
The body of the camera stores what the lens lets through - Nikon and Canon both do that very well - the lens is the key factor. if you spend money on lenses (which is where money should be spent), both will shoot the same quality pictures. I went for Nikon for a couple reasons (1) I can hold it with one hand comfortably and securely and do almost everything with one hand (lets the other hand hold the lens (2) I have a strange attraction to Nikon (3) I have friends with Nikon lenses out the rear (except the one lens I want to try (105 macro).
both will shoot the same quality if equipped with an equivalent lens & operator. go with what feels better.
here is a history lesson on canon and nikon:
Nikon vs. Canon
these were shot with the Nikor kit 18-55 on my Nikon D3100 under 450nm actinic reefbrite LED lighting, then balanced against a gray card using Nikon's Capture NX 2. they are older pictures, new ones are a bit sharper:
this was shot with a cheap Sigma 90mm Macro lens which is old and dusty (no complaints on a free 1 month loan!):
I need to get some shots in with my new Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro
yeah, Mrs Clause was very kind this year!
