Doug RC Loc: Western Massachusetts

Most often, when this question comes up, I ask what the person hopes, and expects to do with their life .. Also how much they
want to spend. If the person is, a retiree for example, and just wants to take up the hobby or a youngster, excited to get into the hobby;
I like to point out a couple of things .. 1. Modern cameras, especially higher end DSLR, Mirrorless, Translucent mirror etc are able to
help you create photos that 30-40 years ago PRO's were barely able to do .. A major brand mid range will have a learning curve but that
is ''''expected'''' .. 2. If you are not determined to make a living with a camera but want to DO THINGS with photography then shoot for
a 'major brand' (ie Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus etc) and get an extended warranty with accident coverage, it will have a higher resale
value if you buy it new and 'usually' there will be more accessories available.
Then take that cameravas far as you possibly can, learn and try everything it can do .. any of these cameras can be used to make
prize winning photos even as good as many 'pros' .. if you THEN find you can make money (that will support your upgrades)
.. until it dies, such a camera will give you all you need .. Better lenses can cost more than the camera and will improve your pictures much more than a more expensive body.

cthahn

Purchase a good used camera. Save money to start until you find out what you want to do in photography.

Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH

I think it's pretty fair to say that any of us who have the "camera that we want for life" probably paid a pretty good chunk of change for it, and the group of lenses. That type of commitment is difficult for a novice to make. There are so many options for top notch "entry level" cameras (whatever that means) that it's understandable that novices would go that route.

I think it makes sense to get a lower end camera, see how much you like it, figure out what you're shooting, and then find out any better options.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

It takes many hours, days, and weeks on UHH to learn about all the gear we "have to" buy. I was never thrilled with the idea of starting out cheap with anything. Of course, I wouldn't recommend a $6,000 camera for someone who is just starting out, but if the first gear he buys is holding him back, that cold dampen his enthusiasm.

"By Thom" has a good article about buying a tripod. Save money buy getting just one - a good one, right at the start.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Sticking with one camera today is about as likely as keeping the same television for thirty years. Cameras, coffee makers and cars are more about electronics than what their equivalent products did just a few years ago. Film and file formats evolve, and circuits, software, and robotic manufacturing get better and cheaper all the time. Since what many call photography these days is increasingly about equipment and less about art and craft, and because GAS attacks tend to increase with age and disposable income, the proposition to never upgrade seems to be less likely today than it was in the film days when people were happy with their Nikon F or Canon AE-1 for decades at a stretch. One nice thing about modern cameras is that miniaturized automation takes so much work out of making usable images that it's just a lot more fun for a lot more people. I can imagine someone swearing off upgrades as a personal quest to work solely on their technique and art, but only out of financial necessity, cult practice, or bragging rights at a bar or on a forum someday. I would never buy my kid a Martin D-28 because he thinks he wants to play guitar, but I might if I was the CEO of facebook. More simply, most folks in the middle classes are more practical than to start up a new hobby on professional grade equipment given the real possibility they won't go far with it.

Szalajj Loc: Salem, NH

Originally, I was going to say that you should buy the best camera that you can afford at the time of your purchase.

But after reading the other comnents, I've changed my train of thought.

28 months ago, all that I knew was that I needed a DSLR for a class that I signed up for, I had a limited budget, and I knew what brand I wanted to buy. So my purchase had to fit within those confines.

Little did I know at that time that within 8 months of that purchase my needs would drastically change because what I started shooting required something that my entry level camera couldn't do.

When you go to purchase a camera, often you do not know your future needs or wants, and over time technology improves and increases our choices. That means that what's top shelf today, could become obsolete in the near future.

The sales person who listens to the customer's desires and asks a lot questions to determine what they want to shoot, their past experience with cameras if any, and potential environmental needs (weather proofing needed?) will assist the customer by fitting them into a camera that meets their needs and allows for growth with that equipment.

That means that buying a camera with tons of bells and whistles might not be the best move for a beginner, who might end up getting really frustrated with a pro-sumer model instead of buying one closer to an entry level or mid-range model.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

The Kodak Brownie will never die. It will never be outdated, and is the only camera any photographer could be competent with cause it has auto exposure and auto focus and auto iso.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

Depends on your age..... But seriously, the higher end bodies have more direct access controls so that you do not have to fumble with layers of menus to make changes to the shooting parameters. If you are going to use pre-programmed modes, then buy an entry level body. Note that the sensors in high end and low end bodies are about equal and the image capture come through the lens. A great lens on an entry level body will render a better image than a "kit" lens on a pro body. JMHO.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

My first DSLR camera was a Nikon D70s. It was the "best" camera that I could afford when I purchased it new. I purchased the D70s in June of 2006 (it was first shipped in March of that year I think) My next camera was a D7100. This was purchased in August or September of 2013 and is my "primary" DX DSLR. I also have a D610 that was purchased in July of 2015 and was my first FULL Frame (FX) camera. I never purchase a "lifetime" camera because cameras (like all other devices, especially electrical) are constantly changing and improving. My D70s (while still a good camera) was the cream of the crop in 2006. By the time that the D7100 came out, the 6.1 mp D70s was obsolete but still a decent camera. I gave it to my wife since it works fine and all of my DX and FX lenses will work on it. The D7100 is a 24.1 megapixel camera and is a considerable upgrade over the D70s. My D610 is a 24.3 mp camera but is Full Frame vs the crop sensor of DX of the other two. Now that the D70s is starting to age and the D7100 has been surpassed by newer crop sensor cameras with newer / better features, I will probably give it to the wife and get a newer crop sensor. Cameras, like computers, cars and other products are constantly evolving and the "latest / greatest of 10 years ago has been surpassed by devices with better features including higher resolution.
So, unless you're old enough that you probably won't be doing photography in the next 5-10 years, I don't think that there is a "final" best camera unless the camera you have meets all of your needs 5-10 years from now. Sure, the person that ONLY uses the camera to record the occasional family special occasion or a vacation one or two weeks a year will get by with what ever camera, but if so, then why buy a DSLR? Why not just get a point and shoot that you can stick in your jacket or purse and pull out for the quick family shot? Remember that in the 50's 60's and 70's we had 35mm film cameras, 2 1/4" film and others. You had Kodak, Rolleiflex, Minolta, Miranda, Nikon, Canon, and tons of varying formats and configurations. We also had Polaroid and instamatics. Were any of these "lifetime" cameras? Well, I guess if you ether only used the camera once or twice a year or you passed away shortly after purchasing it. I guess the true answer is that it depends on what you expect out of your photography and how old you are.

James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA

Since I'm a collector, IDK if I'd pick ONE of any thing for life, but it's probably better to decide on what "system" (Canon, Nikon,Pentax,Sony...) and "form factor" (DSLR, mirrorless) than committing to a body. The lenses and other paraphernalia will in the end be the bigger investment. Tommorow's low end body will out perform today's high end one anyways!

sr71 Loc: In Col. Juan Seguin Land

My first camera was a Nikon Ftn, the best at the time... Here is a good link for everyone...

https://visualsciencelab.blogspot.my/

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Excellent point. Perhaps the idea about a lifetime camera would apply to lenses more so than bodies. I can see upgrading a lens for improvements like quieter zoom, OIS, etc. but an excellent older manual prime lens might well outlive its contemporaneous body or my own, for that matter. I'll know when one of my grandkids asks me who gets the NIKKORs when I die.

pepprdog

All the previous answers are well worth paying attention to.
DX or FX?
FX is the updated/upgraded sensor system. Go there. Main reason is lenses for future use.
DX can use FX but FX isn't compatible with DX.
One other consideration is how many pictures will you take?
Because digital allows lots of pictures to be taken without the cost of film, processing and other film related costs, I find myself taking more pictures that I did with film.
There are usually a couple of reasons there are so many different cost levels from each manufacturer, Bells & whistles and construction. The costs of bodies is generally tied to how robust they are and the more expensive models will supposedly take more pictures under harsher conditions before wearing out/failing.
For starters go with fewer automatic functions but better sealed and stronger (hoping longer lasting) built bodies. They also "usually" have better lenses in the package deal.
Good luck!!!

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Of course. That's why I have a Zenit E, a Canon AE-1, a T90 and so many more!

It's like going to the doctor and being told you're going to have to take one of these pills every day for the rest of your life.

Then realizing that there are only five pills in the bottle!

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

I think Retina had good insight to the question... Great glass will always trump a body; (no pun intended). I would pick out a system that appeals to you and build within that system by buying only the best glass and upgrading bodies as needed. There are some great legacy lenses out there that are just as viable now as they were 20 years ago.