>>>I've always thought the differences in camera bodies was less important than in the line of lenses available. That's the reason I bought Nikon back in the 1970's. They still have the best overall selection of lenses.
That was true for film cameras because in the end, what did the camera do? It just controlled exposure. While a high-end camera might be quieter, have less vibration and be more robust, as long as the film travelled flat across the film plane, a N65 was as good as a F5 or F6, especially when used in manual mode.
But in the digital age, the sensor makes a big difference and there's an awful lot of processing that goes on in the camera. In addition, a typical digital camera has hundreds of different settings that can affect the way a digital photo looks. So I think bodies are far more important than they used to be.
And for the record, I think most people would claim that Canon has a better selection of lenses although Nikon is reputed to have better quality lenses. The numbers aren't that different anymore - Nikon has 56 and Canon has 63 in their current lines, but Canon has lots of high-end f4 lenses, which Nikon doesn't have. And everyone is waiting for Nikon to update their FX prime line, which were mostly released in the mid-90s. IMO, the number of lenses makes no difference because how many lenses is one person going to own anyway? In spite of what you might believe by reading sites like this one, the industry average is only 1.68 lenses shipped for each body shipped. And Nikon's average is even lower: it was 1.47 for their first fiscal quarter of this year. (Last year it was 1.42).