Nikon, Canon, Fujifilm. DSLR for a first-timer?

I've been looking at a Rebel but I've always liked Nikon… But at the same time, I don't know if I'm just going after a camera because I like the brand.
Basically, I'm looking for a DSLR that is user friendly. I'm looking into taking a photography course and for this, I'll be needing a camera of professional quality. I'm looking for one for shooting landscapes and macro (flowers, bugs, nature, etc) so an interchangeable lens would be splendid/a must. I'm looking to spend around $700 for the camera and am willing to pay for the lenses separately when my next cheque rolls around. I'm needing some suggestions as to the best brands and models suited to my desire and price range.

Have you looked at the sensor performance of those cameras?

http://www.dxomark.com/...or-Ratings

For $700 look at the Nikon D3200 and Canon T3i/600D

I would recommend the Nikon D3200.

Then for close ups, you need a Macro lens. Macro means close up. For Macro, consider either the Nikon AF-S 40mm micro. 60mm micro, or 105mm micro (Nikon calls Macro lenses Micro). The differences in these lenses are cost vs.distance. The 40mm is the least expensive, and the 105mm the most.

The distance difference is how far you can stay back to take the photo. A 40mm macro lens is often limited to flowers and intimate objects as you have to be so close you may scare off bugs.

A 105mm macro lens is a lot better for bugs, but it is more technically challenging to use as you typically need to use manual focus and high apertures due to the limited depth of field. And the lens is much more expensive (more than the camera). And you may also need to buy a macro flash, which can also cost as much as the lens.

You could easily end up with a $1, 800 bill for just a 105mm lens and macro flash - not counting the camera. In contrast, the Nikon AF-S 40mm costs $279, and while it is not the best lens for bugs, it will get you into macro use. You can always upgrade to a 105mm lens later if you wish. For me, I have both the Nikon AF-S 40mm micro and a Tokina 100mm macro to cover both ends of the spectrum.

Unfortunately, the Tokina 100mm (around $500) will not autofocus on anything but a D7000 and above. However, this may not be an issue as in macro use, you will typically be using manual focus (which also requires a tripod), but if you wanted to use the lens for anything else (it is also a good portrait lens), then the lack of autofocus may be an issue with an entry-level Nikon DSLR.

With the 40mm, you can usually get by with using autofocus, and with the deeper depth of field (which still can be a challenge), it is easier for new photographers.

So the 40mm is easier, less expensive, but limited to intimate objects, while the 105mm macro is more challenging, more expensive, but is better suited for bugs.

The 60mm is a compromise between the 40 and 105mm lenses.

Of course you go after a camera because you like the brand. How else would you make a decent selection then?

There's no such thing as a user-friendly dSLR. It's either you know how to use them all or you don't.

Landscapes can be taken with the 18-55mm lens around the 18mm end. Macro will need a separate macro lens. Here's how to look at lenses.

http://keerok-photography.blogspot.com/2011/05/lenses-so-many-of-them-there-is-no-best.html

Suggestions? Get the most expensive Nikon you can afford and stick to it until it dies.

Fujifilm don't make DSLRs, but they virtually own the bridge camera market.

All DSLRs are much the same, but I prefer Pentax, and Sony's SLTs with their superior video performance also have a strong following.

Find a dealer and handle a couple, because the best camera is the one that feels right to YOU.