Beginner SLR Cameras: Canon D1300, Canon D1200, Nikon D3300 - Which One to Choose? Budget $2000

Hello! I plan to buy the first SLR. I care about good quality photos and movies. The budget is not too big about 2000, and due to the fact that it will be my first SLR, I would not want to spend a lot of money. I am thinking of three models: canon d1300, canon d1200 and nikon d3300. Could someone advise what to choose for an amateur?
Thank you in advance

Used (mileage 10-40k) Pentax K-5 (body for approx. PLN 1200) for the rest of the lens.

First of all, you have to think about buying a DSLR at all.
Know that this decision will entail considerable costs. I'm not talking about the expense of these 2k on the camera, but as practice shows every DSLR user gaining experience and also knowledge because this is necessary to understand things, he comes to the conclusion himself, after some time, that he needs more lenses. And this is where the costs begin. The appetite for better and better glasses increases with experience. If at the beginning an ordinary kit lens is enough, then after some time one comes to the conclusion that it would be worth to buy better quality, bright and sharp-drawing lenses. The prices of such slides are often several thousand for each.
Therefore, sorry for the long lecture but I write from my and other colleagues' experience that this will be if you catch the bug of photography, and at the same time you will be able to spend several thousand on the slide at least once a year, I recommend this fun as it is, it's real fun .
If you already know that the money will not be so sweet, rather give up and focus on better mirrorless cameras.
I don't want to get discouraged, quite the opposite. If you are decided on a SLR camera, buy yourself a drug in good condition with a small (up to 30-40 thousand) mileage. You will not invest too much, and if you decide that it is worth it, at least consciously go on an adventure often for life.
I recommend looking for Nikon or Canon. Look at Allegro and you'll see how many lenses are available.

Thank you for your response. I know that SLRs are associated with high costs, but I would like something cheaper for now. I need good equipment. I don't have enough funds so far, but after a while, as you wrote, I will invest in lenses. I don't have to worry about that either.
What could you recommend a particular model to start with?

If there is to be good equipment, give up your suggestions.
One suggestion I gave, the next is Nikon D7000 or Canon two-digit (40D, 60D). Used equipment, so you have to look at the counters and it's better not to buy above 40,000.
Body (used) is rather the beginning of spending money. Good lenses are not cheap, and very good is often a 5-digit amount.

Hm ... Now I don't know what to do. But I need to take good quality pictures, so I will have to buy something. The problem is that I'm afraid to buy used equipment because I'm not sure if someone is cheating on me. Canon d600 is nowhere and I was interested. I will still think about it.

There is risk with every equipment used. Therefore, it is best to buy somewhere nearby to be able to watch, try (preferably with another person who knows about it). Also a year ago I bought a used body for a small amount next door. It may happen that the equipment comes out functional and is damaged during transport.

The new ones are Nikon D5300, Pentax K-50, Canon 700D.

Instead of an SLR camera, you can consider buying a "mirrorless" camera with replaceable optics. Similar price and better quality.

If we are talking about Nikon, the 7000 is quite an old model and I would rather look for the D7100 or D7200 in your place. This is a half-frame body. This is another matter to consider. Why are you buying a SLR? If this is not to be a job, then I recommend this standard because it will simply be much cheaper than packing in full-frame cameras. Lenses for them are also much more expensive, and if you have any FX lens you can always fasten it to a smaller format.
If you limit the amount at the beginning of buying a weak body, it will be penalized in the future because of its weak capabilities.

It's not all together.

lilia166 wrote:

I care about good quality photos and movies.

Good image quality - SLR camera
Good quality movies - Camera
otherwise you can't.

lilia166 wrote:

The budget is not too big about 2000, and due to the fact that it will be my first SLR, I would not want to spend a lot of money.

Or we "play" with SLRs and take into account expenses and a heavy bag. Or a pity the west.
Because there will be disappointment.

No BODY is the most important and the most important are the glasses.
And it is the glasses that are the most expensive.
Because the cheaper ones eliminate the assumption of "good quality photos" hence the disappointment.

Friend Lilia166, you can't buy without making a decision. When buying a car you also need to choose the model and color. Good SLRs are expensive, some definitely expensive. However, I don't think you need a Formula I car at the beginning. The general rule in SLRs is that you choose the system (Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Sony and what else). Then (for starters) you buy a not too expensive body, focusing on a reasonably good lens. In Canon, such "not too expensive" bodies are two-digit models: 40d, 50d, 60d, etc. - you can look at the prices. If you're not afraid of used cameras, look at 40d, it's really solid, though not the latest, construction. And as for the glass, do not buy a lens so-called "kitowy" because, as the name suggests, it sucks. Here, consider whether you prefer zoom or fixed focal length. In the second case, you have definitely better image quality, and the zoom is ... in your legs It's so short. DSLRs pull you in, you always think of how to buy another interesting lens here. This, both good and bad, depends on how much you are drawn to this topic. Oh ... 40d doesn't make movies, unless it's 50d this feature, you have to check it carefully.