Excuse me for asking this but I'm new to photography and am seeking some newby advice, after having a good read on the forums, am I right in saying Nikon are better for bodies and Canon better for lenses ? it seems there is a big difference of opinions
Sounds like repetition distortion of the old, Nikon make lenses, Cannon make bodies, chestnut.
Many many decades ago, Nikkon, were a lens-maker, Cannon were a camera body maker, and ought n Nkon lenses to incorporate into their own cameras; hence suggestion that Nikon made better lenses, Cannon made better bodies, as that was originally their area of specialization, and each was playing catch-up t the other outside it. That WAS however a very-VERY long time ago, as in the 1950's/60's, and probably wasn't true by the 70's/80's let alone 90's or millennium.
Cannon were fast to market 'Auto-Focus' SLR cameras; they weren't the first, but they were the more practicable.... Nikon, were slower to promote AF, and persevered with an in camera motor rather than in-lens motor, where Cannon had patented the 'Silent-Wave' in lens motor.
That technology co-incided with the vogue of the zoom lens, which made it some-what more practical and affordable, to replace a bag full of maybe five or six 'prime' lenses with just two, or even just one, wide range 'zoom'.
Now, a zoom lens is hugely compromised in design to offer a variable focal length; they frequently don't have as fast a maximum aperture; they cant have as 'rigid' a construction, and will usually have to compromise their ultimate optical quality, to pack in 'all' the features necessary, even at a more expensive price point....
And here in lies the googlie....
I have two 'genuine' Nikkor lenses for my electric-picture maker; the 'kit' 18-55 and the 'kit' 55-300.. slapping an M42 converter, on my EPM, even with a correction element in it, and then using say the 29mm or 50mm or 135mm or 300mm 'primes' from my old film camera give NOTICEABLY better image quality over the Nikkor lenses, despite the corrected converter mount, and despite the M42 lenses being both 'old' and except in the case of the Ziess 50, 'propriety' lesser makes, like Hanimex or Pentacon...
These 'modern' Nikkor brand lenses, at the budget end of the scale are really not all that wonderful, despite the brand name emblazoned on the side.. they are very 'cheap' lenses; the 18-55 notably actually costing less with the kit than it would on its own!
So you HAVE to be a little more discerning, there really ISN'T a generality here!
'Some' Nkon lenses are likely better than some Cannon, and vice versa, and there are likely a lot of independent 3rd party lenses 'better' then either, certainly within certain price brackets.
Until maybe six or seven years ago, Cannon 'probably' had better digital sensors, or at least ore mega-pixie sensors than did Nikon, now, ts flipped, and Nikon often have more mega-pixies and are applauded for better dynamic range and stuff....
Whilst some prefer the handling and button prodding way a Cannon works, others how a Nikon does....
B-U-T we are still talking wild generalities, and just looking at Digital cameras of the last ten years HUGE differences within each makers camera ranges!
It is an unanswerable question.... it REALLY is.....
More,i ts a question you should ask, does t eve NEED to be asked, or answered?
As said, the lenses from my old film cameras enormously out-perform, as far as IQ, the modern kit lenses I got with the camera. This does NOT mean I am faffing with the adapter and old legacy lenses every time I pick up the digit-camera, or fretting over what lens 'upgrade' to get!!!
End of the day, "Does it work? Does it work well ENOUGH?"
I've bee at this lark, umpety decades, and the weak-link i how good any of my photo's may or may not be, ISN'T the lens on the front, or the camera on the back, but the idiot pressing the buttons! ME!
I chose Nikon, as to me it was more 'intuitive' to use, (even though I STILL try screwing the lens on and off the wrong way!) where the Cannon felt a lot more like a smurf-phone and needed a lot more menu interrogation to make it do anything, but some folk like that, it seems.
As said, even having dissed the kit lenses, I still have them, even though I know they aren't the best and even have better... bottom line, they do the job! and they were 'cheap', and I probably wouldn't achieve much better with anything more expensive very often. 18-55 is then y most used lens on the EPM.
If you are just starting out, don't sweat the small stuff. Try both, see what YOU find easiest to pick up, hold, turn on and take a photo with.
Just about anything made n the last ten years will almost certainly have more capability than you for a long while, and YOU will be the weak-link, in the chain, not the camera, not the lens; so you will get far more paying attention to the instruction book, than the brochure specs.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder might be one possible conclusion 
