Everyone seems to be assuming that you are someone with money to burn and planning to quickly become a photography guru. Some are suggesting $5,000 cameras with $2,000 lenses. I doubt that is what you actually want or need.

No one has asked you THE most basic questions. DO YOU WANT A SIMPLE POINT AND SHOOT CAMERA OR A DSLR and DO YOU WANT TO TAKE UP PHOTOGRAPHY AS A HOBBY OR DO YOU JUST WANT SOMETHING SIMPLE FOR FAMILY SNAPSHOTS???

If your purpose is only to take "snapshots" and you are not interested in taking up photography as a hobby, I would recommend a simple, uncomplicated point and shoot camera such as one of the camera's from the Sony Cybershot, Nikon Coolpix or Canon PowerShot lines. The point and shoot models strat in the $150 range and go up from there.

On the other hand, if you are planning to pursue photography as a hobby, go for a starter DSLR kit camera with one or two low end lenses and budget for $600 or more. If cost is a major consideration, a used or factory refurbished DSLR purchased from a reputable dealer who offers a warranty could be a smart decision. Please let us know what you decide.

2/2

Here are my thoughts on the topic of better cropped sensor camera bodies, comparing my D5300 to the D500. For my kind of photography the comparison of these two bodies is more or less equal when comparing the D5300 to a full frame body. The final and important question is - is it worth it?

----

All cameras are compromises. Some are better for this, others are better for that.

Nikon D5300 vs D500
When I compare my Nikon D5300 to the far more expensive D500 (both are crop sensor/DX cameras, and the D500 is considered one of the best DX bodies) I find that...

Flash sync speed is 1/200 vs 1/250.
Max shutter speed is 1/4000 vs 1/8000.
Megapixels are 24 vs 21.
Pixel area 15,28um2 vs 17,85um2
Pixel pitch: 3.89um2 vs 4.2um2
Weather sealed: No vs Yes.
Fully articulated screen: Yes vs No.
Internal flash: Yes vs No.
Built in GPS: Yes vs No.
Price body only: $435 vs $1,520
Shutter life cycle: 100,000 vs 200,000
Weight: 480gr vs 860gr.
Focus points: 39 vs 153.
Continues shooting: 5fps vs 10fps
Max resolution: 6000x4000 vs 5568x3722
Max ISO: 12,800 vs 51,200 /not boosted.

From my point of view, for more than $1000 less I got a camera with as high, if not sometimes slightly higher, resolution than the D500.

Pros:
More than $1000 Cheaper.
Higher pixel density, ie sharper pictures under certain conditions.
Higher max resolution.
Built in GPS.
Fully articulated screen.

Cons:
Slower max shutter speed.
Less focus points. (I rarely use more than one... ;-)
Not weather sealed.
Less frames per second.
Lower max ISO.

Was the D5300 worth buying?
-Yes absolutely!

For the $1000 saved on the body I had money to buy several books, extra lenses, a tripod, high quality polarizing filters, battery grip, extra batteries, cable shutter remote, speedlights, and other stuff.

As I started off with a dedicated and serious interest in digital photography, I began my re-educational film-knowledge to digital photography journey in one of the several auto modes the D5300 provides. As I have learned a lot more since purchase in January 2017, I now shoot in manual mode more than 95% of the time. Still using the Auto mode from time to time, but just as a starting point.

My main objects are landscapes of various kinds, hummingbirds in flight, and candid shots of children and adults.

So what do I miss on the D5300?
* Better low light performance. This is, to some extent, compensated with better lenses.
* Faster flash sync speed. This can be compensated with studio flood lights.
* Weather sealing. This can be compensated with a plastic bag or a “raincoat” designed for the camera during bad weather conditions.

Do I want a more expensive camera body? - No, I don’t. Maybe I’m ignorant, dumb and/or stupid ... but I cannot for my life digest how another camera body will benefit the quality of my pictures.

This means that, instead of spending money on a “better” body I prefer to spend my hard earned cash on better lenses.

Now, one could argue that a full frame, FF, camera, like the Nikon D850, is a better choice than my D5300. I agree, YES, it is better!, - up until it’s time to pay for it...

From my point of view $3,200 for the D850 body only disqualifies it faster than a rabbit makes new rabbits...!

- I don’t have the money for a full frame camera. Period. From my point of view, far better is to, over time, buy the best lenses I can find for my D5300, and no one will ever see the difference.

As said above; I’ve got:
-Nikon D5300 with the 18-55mm kit lens. Paid $449 for it. It came with a bundle of filters, a flash, and lots of other cheap & useless junk, which now is stored in my closet and never have been used.

-The 18-55 kit lens will be replaced with the much sharper Nikkor 17-55mm f2.8 in July this year. The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 G2 was interesting too, but as it’s ~$500 for the used Nikkor, and ~$1200 for a new Tamron, the Nikkor won.

-The Nikkor 35mm 1.8 for low light. (Paid $142.50 for it, used on eBay.)

-The Tokina 11-20mm 2.8 for landscapes. Price: $395, used on eBay.

-The Nikkor 55-200mm for candid shots of people, for $54.99, used on eBay. However, this one will be replaced by the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 during the second half of this year.

-Furthermore, I want a 500mm mirror lens just for the fun of having one!

Replacing the D5300?
- Not a chance! Only if I win a million $$ at the lottery, and then I’d get the mirrorless Hasselblad. But I’d better start buying the lottery tickets first, right...? 😂

What am I saying here?
-Get the best camera you can afford. Then, over time, buy the best lenses you have money for. Because the most important thing in photography isn’t the camera, nor is it what is in front of it.
- The most important thing in photography is what is behind it. You.

...and if you follow my lead, you will find that you have a few dollars left for sipping on a good single malt every now and then...! 😄