for a beginner you don't need a FX unless u just have enough money to spend. more important are the lenses and ofc the photographer. for start i think you should have a 50mm and a telephoto in you bag along with the body camera.. see what budget u got.. cut the price of the lenses than search a camera on the budget left.

Just seems like it's a slippery slope that ends at a particular price point. The Nikon D7100 looks great nut then at that point I might as well go for the far superior d600 which does a lot better with night shots and seems to function getting better colored shots when I look at some by side samples.

Seems expensive since a d600 would demand at least what... Another 1000 worth of lenses??

I've heard the d600 is bad over time and needs cleaning?

Hmmm... Canon EOS 6D looks nice.

5d mark iii even better :]

Haha. The 6D looks like it'd be enough for me, but even at $1600 for the body, it looks like I'd be spending a good $1600 more, not including taxes.

I'm definitely going to do more research and understand things more before I even let myself get tempted into stepping into a store.

not worth the price vs mark ii

oh it certainly is
but I cant warrant the upgrade atm
the better focusing alone is worth the increase imo

that's not what my bank account says.

So out of curiosity: Would the Canon 6D with the 0344B002 lens (24-105mm USM lens) be enough for a beginner to start with? Just one lens? That's $2400.

Or how much more would I need to invest. What lenses would I want with a Canon 6D? And would I want something with more autofocus points?

Again, all theoretical right now. Somewhat based on whether my laptop sells or not. I don't really care whether I sell it or not (either way I'd use it), but if I do sell it, I'll just use a cheaper laptop and maybe get myself a toy to learn.