Right, well, returning to the KISS 'basics' aproach;I'm not exactly an early learner; I have the Nikon D3200, of aprox 5yr old vintage, their then current entry level DSLR. It came with the 'kit' 18-55 lens, and I added the similar 'kit' 55-300 for some cheap 'zoom' early on. For family/social type photo, this is more than 'adequate', and mst of my photo's are taken with the 18-55 that came with the camera; the long zoom is rarely used, and when it is, often doesn't get stretched much past about the 150 setting, I would probably do very well, with a simple single 18-140 super-zoom 'one lens' outfit. And I don't have an accessory flash for the electric-picture-maker.
Very tempting, especially if you have the luxury of a less constrictive budget, to buy all the gear with no idea.. but, that wont necessarily 'help' in the learning. And more gear you have the more likely you are to spend more time faffing with the gadgets, looking AT the camera than through it NOT taking pictures, and with so much to faff with, giving yourself far more chance to eff things up, than get better shots... you have been warned.
A pretty typical newby trait, is the long zoom; making the subject big in the frame, it offers an instant and What-You-See-IS-What-You-Get, 'effect' making the subject prominent in the picture, eliminating 'clutter' and distraction around the subject by not including it in the frame, drawing the viewers attention instantly 'in' on the subject and giving it visual 'impact' ; BUT its a one-trick-dog, and impact doesn't make a photo 'interesting'; exclusing setting and context often makes for a lot of boring, and after the initial 'impact' there is little to engage the viewer further. Meanwhile; the extra zoom, will make scanning the scene and getting or keeping your subject in the frame more tricky, and getting and keeping focus and avoiding 'blur' from camera shake or subject motion will be that much harder, exacerbated, by the added zoom begging a higher shutter-speed, whilst at the same time, usually limiting the lens to smaller apertures, competing with shutter speed to get a good exposure. Net result will tend to be, that you don't actually get any more 'better' photo's for your efforts; you may get some that show promise or seem pretty stunning at first glance, but, you are making problems for yourself you don't need to have, trying to achieve something that probably isn't the best you could do anyway. Then what many learn fro that is often perverse; they blame the equipment and convince themselves they 'need' even better equipment to take better photo's; they start fretting about settings, to help combat blurry shots, or worrying about focus scenes o the speed of their lens' focus mechanism, rather than learning the basics... like how to hold a camera steady!
Starting small, Keeping-It-Simple-Silly; without SO much to faff with and distract; off the stops you will get photo's; and for the large part, they probably wont be too bad; likely not to be as stunning as you'd hope, but yo will get a good crop of half decent pictures; and without so much 'zoom' they will lkely contain a lot mre context and detail, and whet they lack in 'impact' make up for with the sort of 'interest' that can hold a viewers attention longer. When you start running into issues like 'blur' then a little learning will go along way, and picking up on good holding technique, good panning technique, will do a lot more than fretting about f-stops; and if/when you step up to more sophisticated 'gear', those corner-stones of 'technique' you have hopefully learned along the way to get the best from the humbler starter equipment, should stand you in great stead to use with the better gear and actually get the results you hope for from it, rather than frustration, over whelmed by the plethora of gadgets ad trying to pick the one you think will do the job for you, rather than recognizing you have to do the job, and know how to do it first.
Mention has been made of sensor size.. this is something you may like to read up on, but I WOULD say don't obsess about! All the cameras in your short-list AFAIK are what's known as APS-C or 'crop-sensor' cameras, that have a silcone chip behind the lens that reads the 'image' from the lens that are aprox 16x24mm square, as opposed to one that is 24x36mm for a 'full-frame' camera, or aout 12x16mm for MFT.. and smaller still on most bridge and compact cameras.... topic can get quite heavy quite fast, but, the smaller the sensor, the greater the 'crop-factor'. Looking at a smaller area of the image projected by the lens, the more 'apparent' zoom a lens will seem to have; this makes it convenient to get a lot of effective zoom, with a relatively short lens, but does tend to make it harder to get as much 'wide' that beg often incredibly 'short' focal length lenses. Meanwhile, the 'Depth of Field' how much front to back focus you get in the depth of a scene,, tends to be greater the shorter the focal length of lens; so smaller sensor cameras have a bit of swings and round-abouts there; they tend to make 'focus' less critical, as the greate DoF means ore infront and behind your subject will tend to be in acceptable focus, but at the same time, f you want 'shallow' focus effects, where backgrounds go blurry, this can be harder to achieve; and leads many to assume they 'must' have to use fast aperture, f1.8 primes, to achieve them, which is a little errant; and again, chasing gear over idea... but still. For you and where you are at, it really shouldn't be particularly important or worth worrying about. And again, certainly not something I would say was worth the plathora of elevated 'faff' that accompanies a full frame camera, to stick even more o your plate to get to grips with up-front.
I stand by comments about Micro-Four-Thirds / Mirrorless; technically they can be fantastic cameras; but they aren't the man-stream (yet), they do have many compromises associated with them, and the added crop factor of MFT, and the lesser availability of wide lenses because of it, and that DoF issue does tend to make them less appropriate both for a complete newby and for portrait photo's where shallow focus effects ar likely more desirable.
Question of post-process, and RAW.... yeah... again, DON'T bite off more than you can chew! Again, read up a bit if you want, but it is likely mounting the mash on your plate! Remember digital cameras don't take 'pictures'; they 'paint by numbers' - backwards! What the camera captures is a table of values, that describe a scene, from which a display device ca then 'paint by numbers' forwards to make a picture. The different file formats, and there are dozens, like JPG or TIFF or BMP, are all just coding schemes; instructions that go with the paint-by-numbers 'picture' to tell the painter which tube of paint to fill in the boxes with. (put Very VERY simply!) JPG is the most common 'standard' and the format that is most convenient for looking at and sharing pictures between display devices. RAW.. is a little more involved, and there are a number of RAW 'formats' that are usually specific to individual makes of Camera. Basic principle is that RAW files don't try and make such a ready to paint Paint-By-Numbers board, that is easily filled in to make a picture; instead they record more closely the actual light-radig values off the camera sensor, and lave it up to an intermediary process to turn that into a file that can then be displayed n screen. Files tend to be bigger and more cumbersome to mess with, usually beg some post-processing to make a display image file you can 'share' or display easily.
Personally I don't have the reverence for RAW so many endow it with; what changes you can make to an image captured in RAW over one captured in JPEG aren't actually all that enormous; and you certainly cant salvage a duffer that was out of focus or completely hoolied on exposure, or is blury because of the wrong shutter speed or poor hand-holding! It IS a step into the world of habitual post-processing though, and the futility of spending large chunks of your life trying to polish turds, expecting to make a silk-purse out of a sows-ear after the event, rather than putting n the diligence and discipline 'up-front' to get it clean in camera, from making sure the shots composed as you want it; making sure it IS i focus, and using suitable shutter speeds to avoid blurr etc. WHICH again, for where you are at is heaping up the plate with mashed potato; giving you a lot more to contend with than you need, giving you eve more to try and 'learn' and leading you down avenues of obsession to make life likely harder, rather than better.
As aid, I am far from a beginner; I have had a basic entry level DSLR for five years; I see little reason, let alone compulsion to 'upgrade' that kit; whilst my daughter has had an even more humble model for just over 3 years and just finished both her GCSE and A-Level photography courses with it, tackling more demanding 'academic' exercises with the thing; Sorry but I do NOT subscribe into consumer indoctrination that I HAVE to have bigger better faster more, because the marketing men say so, or that whatever I buy today, will be 'obsolete' and 'redundant' in a years time, because they have put a mouse trap with maw gzomos on it on the market! Crikey, I still shoot FILM for gawds sake! Bottom line... IT MAKES A PICTURE!... photo's I took thirty odd years ago aren't any 'worse' because I didn't have took and twist ruddy preview screen on the back! And I have to say; scanned at a pretty high detail level, even with an almost twenty year old scanner, I get digital versions of them, that are almost as many Mega-Pixies as current direct-digital cameras, and greater colour depth! So, even a fifty year old camera, and a twenty year old bit of computer imaging device can STILL delver the goods by way of a PICTURE, I can look at and enjoy, i which the interest and enjoyment ISN'T to be found in how many buttons there were on the camera, or what sliders I twiddled in lght-room, BUT whether I poted the ruddy thing at something 'interesting' to start with!
It Is so easy i photography to loose sight of the woods for all the trees; and especially more so the more enthusiastic you are about it; getting 'all the toys'; and feeling compelled to play with them, just because you have bought them, or they are available for you to buy... but KISS... there is no need to go over the top; to obsess about minutia, and worry about ALL this technology that is available today, even less to kid yourself that you HAVE to have it, and that you 'must' future proof your purchase, as things change so fast, and disappear up the f-stop of 'gadgetry' forgetting that what matters is TAKING PICTURES.
The entry lvel DSLR's from Nkon & Cannon are bang o the money for where you are at, as far as getting started, and giving yourself most opportunity of learning the craft, and getting the most out of whatever 'gear' you happen to have available; be that a disposeable film camera or a professional studio Medium format camera, and everything in between or to ether side.
Ambition is great; eagerness is great; BUT, don't mountain up your plate with mash, and overwhelm yourself with gear; KISS.. keep it humble; expect failure; don't put expectations on either yourself or your kit above your ability, to disappoint yourself with failure and frustration; a humble entry level DSLR and a kt lens, is MORE than eough to get going and start getting to grips with, without giving yourself so much extra to faff, distract, and get n the way of your learning, making more problems than any of it can ever solve.
JUST grab a camera, and start making pictures, and remember, its the pictures that matter NOT what you used to make them. And it s better photographers that take better pictures, NOT better cameras. Buy as LITTLE as you need; THAT is the best 'future-proofing' you can have; spare cash in the bank; and worry more about giving yourself the best chance to gain the SKILL to take better pictures, as the gadgets will never do it for you. I'll say it again "Keep-It-Simple-Silly"
