Like many others I can give a strong recomendation for either Nikon or Canon. However, I'll go a bit off track and discuss the differences and features that go hand in hand with the size of the image sensors that are available on the broad spectrum of digital cameras on the market.
Most point and shoot cameras use a rather small image sensor, in some cases smaller than the old 8mm movie frame. Which means it's about the size of the fingernail on your little finger. Pluses for this choice is that a small sensor allows the use of a very compact lens. Note, on some models you may see a dual listing for the focal length, the actual focal length and the 35mm equivalent. So, you may see a zoom lens listed as 6-48mm/35-280. That first set of number is the true focal length and it indicates how small the image sensor is in relation to a 35mm film frame. Why does this matter? It's pretty simple, when you try and pack 10mb of resolution onto one of these tiny sensors the individual sensor sites become very very tiny. This means that noise produced by that tiny sensor sight goes way up. Bottomline, these cameras work well when there is a lot of light, however in low light wothout a flash they produce lots of image noise or "grain".
Next up in the chain of image sensor size is the 4/3 format. Panasonic, Olympus, Minolta, Sony, and other 3'rd tier SLR's are using this format on their consumer models and it's not a bad choice of the resolution is held to 8mp or less. However, at 10mp or more it will be noisy in low light when compared to results from a camera with similar resolution using a larger sensor. One plus is that the 4/3 format permits the use of lenses featuring a focal length about 1/2 that required for a 35mm frame size. That means that the lenses can be about 1/2 the size needed for a 35mm camera. However, if a traditional mirror is employed for the viewfinder, there will be problems in achieving a true super wide angle perspective. Basically, you'll probably be limited to a 24mm equivalent in 35mm terms.
Next up is what Nikon refers to as the DX format. Both Canon and Nikon offer an array of cameras that use a 16 X 24mm image sensor and so did Fuji. It's is an old compromize that was once the Standard for Digital SLR cameras and cameras with these sensors provide an excellent balance between image quality and noise production. With just a bit of post shooting editing you can get very good clean images using an ISO setting as high as 3200, which means that you can shoot by candle light if you have the right lens. Lenses for this format will typically be labeled with the True focal length, which means if you want to know the 35mm equivalent you'll have to multiply the focal length by a factor of 1.5 for Nikon and 1.6 for Canon. Since the widest available lens on the market was 10mm last time I looked this means that your widest equivalent is 15mm, which is pretty darned wide. At the other end, your 300mm lens will be equivalent to a 450mm lens on a 35mm format. Cameras using this sensor size can range in price from below 400 dollars (body only) to as much as about 1800 dollars at the high end. There are also multitudes of Kit packages available and they are a good value for the money. Years ago Kit lenses were distinctly inferior to the high end lenses in terms of image quality but today that is no longer the case. However, those inexpensive Kit lenses are somewhat fragile and won't take the abuse that a lens costing 5 times more will, so take care not to drop them and if you do, just throw it away and buy another. BTW, I have a 18-70mm Kit lens that came with my D70 that actually provides DISTINCTLY SHARPER images than my 50mm f1.4 Nikkor, a lens that was once considered the "gold standard" for image quality.
Further up the chain you have what many refer to as "full Frame" cameras. These cameras feature an image sensor that measures 24 x 36mm, the same as the frame size for 35mm film. Cost also goes way way up. Haven't looked lately but at one time the lowest buy in for Full Frame was a 2700 dollar Canon and right now the top end is aroud 8000 dollars for just the body. BTW, Canon was first to offer Full Frame and Nikon took years to catch up, however today both brands are battling for the Full Frame market and offers several different models using this sensor size. One plus is that in the "low" resolution 12-14 mp models the low light capability is simply astounding, some offer boosted ISO settings as high as 128,000. Unfortunately, light meters can't operate in the available dark these sensors can shoot at so shooting in the dark requires a trial and peek approach. I'll also note that the high resolution Full Frames don't offer the super high ISO capability, at 24mp or higher resolutions noise becomes an issue due to the smaller sensor sites. Nikon's 5000 dollar D3 will shoot in the dark, the 8000 dollar D3x won't, however the D3x can approach Kodachrome 25 for image quality.
Even further up the chain are the Medium format digitals, which used a 36 x 48 mm image sensor and offer resolutions that may hit 60 mp. As for cost, think a very nice new car. At some point I expect that we will see image sensors as large as 60 X 60mm and resolutions of 120mp or perhaps more, however these will require a NASA scale budget for at least 10 years.
Now that's been covered, my recomendation would be a 10-12mp camera in the Nikon or Canon consumer line. I would strongly urge you to avoid the temptation for more resolution than this because you'll see a drop in image quality in low light settings. In addition 12mp will produce a 16 x 24 inch print that approaches Gallery Quality if the post production has been done well. Without any post production you can get an 11 X 17 inch print that you can hang on your wall with pride. Finally, lenses that you can actually purchase do NOT offer enough resolution to take advantage of more than 12mp on a 16 x 24mm image sensor. In order to gain the resolution needed to match a higher resolution on this sized sensor requires Lab Grade specialty lenses once used for making Microfilm.
PS; my camera kit used to consist of 2 Nikon F2sb's with MD-2 motor drives and about 10 Primes ranging from 20mm to 300mm. That bag weighed on at 24 lbs. Today my camera kit consists of a Nikon D300 with the 18-70 and a 70-300 VR and probably weighs less than 5 lbs. It's taken a heck of a load off my shoulder and if I anticipate a need for a superwide I substitute a Sigma 12-24mm for the 70-300. One big plus for the D300 is that it does allow me to use all those lenses that I aquired for my ancient F2's, even my old Nikkor H 50mm f2 which is actually the sharpest 50mm Nikkor ever made, don't know why the 1.4 was ever considered the "gold standard" it never was that good.
, has a real viewfinder as well as the digital display screen on the back, and a bunch of other professional features. 
