Expensive camera with cheap lens, or cheaper camera with a more expensive lens?

I'm looking at either getting a Nikon 5100 with the stock lens, or getting an older Nikon D3000 with the stock lens, and probably some other lenses, such as a 50mm. Which do you think would be a better decision, a D5100 with one lens, or a D3000 with a few lenses. Thanks.

Added (1). The D5100 is about $600
The D3000 is about $300
And the lens I want to include with the D3000 is about $150.

Take the D3000 it, s the half price it, s no no reason to give out more Money.
The other Nikon has a little more features and is from 2011 in comparison they D3000 from 2010.

How about a middle ground, the D3100 or 3200 with the additional lens?

The D3000 wasn't particularly well received and quickly replaced by the much better D3100.

Usually lenses are more important than the camera body, but in this case there's quite a big difference between the bodies, so that really should be considered.

Also, don't buy lenses for the sake of buying lenses - only buy a second lens when you know why you need just exactly that lens. Else it's a recipe for wasting money! You might buy a lens that just doesn't suit your preferences.

I sure would go for the older camera. I would survive without the 18-55mm kit lens as long as I have a 35mm f/1.8 for it though the 50mm f/1.8 would also be enticing for closeup portraits.

I won't spend $450 for a very old camera like that, even if it had two lenses. $50 more and I can get a brand new camera already. My absolute ceiling for a secondhand camera is $375 and that camera should be almost new - something like 5, 000 shutter actuations or less. Otherwise, it should only go as far as $280. The point of going secondhand is to save money, right?

Oh cheap camera and expensive lens for sure! Seriously, if you put cheap glass in front of a good camera your image comes out pretty bad, but a good lens can make any cheap camera look like a pro! I've put a link to a video below that really explains it all quite well.

Hope this helps, any other questions pop me an email.
Regards,
Brice

It depends on the work you do with your camera. In college, we had a photographer from "Look" magazine show us how he worked. He shot 6 rolls of 36 exposure film in an hour. Given that enlargements in magazines rarely go into any large size, If given push to shove, he would chose the camera body that would take the punishment he gives it. In my professional life I do a lot of 11x14's and 16x20's, I would opt for the best lenses I could afford! Then improve the bodies as I went along.

The D3000 is almost universally panned as one of the worst cameras Nikon has ever made. That's why they sell so cheap. Since you are comparing a used D3000, we should stick to apples to apples comparison, and the D5100 used goes for around $450(body only). Another option is you could get a used D90 and the 50mm for around $600. You would be much happier with either of these options than the D3000.

When Nikon introduced the D3000 to replace the D40 they really goofed. At the time of the D3000 introduction every other DSLR being introduced had video capability and Live View. The D3000 had neither, was a flop, and was quickly replaced by the D3100 with video and Live View. The D3200 is now replacing the D3100.In my opinion the D3200 with the standard 18-55mm zoom is a better choice. You can add a Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G lens later if you decide you need it.

Always remember that only Nikon AF-S lenses will auto focus on the D3000, D3100, D3200, D5100 and D5200. The D7000 and D90 are the lowest-priced Nikon DSLR cameras with a focus motor in the camera body so on those models you can use Nikon AF lenses.