No one can answer that question but you; It "all depends".......on a BUNCH of things. Here's the very best advice I can give you; You're 13 years old; from your posts, I would guess that you are already more knowledgeable about photography in general than about 99% of young fellows your age. Photography is a very technical subject; so are are modern digital cameras and lenses. Always remember one thing before you buy ANY digital SLR body; in a short time, there will be another camera that will come out "soon" that will have features that the one you just bought lacks. It's completely impossible for anyone to make a really good buying decision about which camera to buy, unless you have a thorough knowledge of many things; exactly what kind of pictures you want to be able to take, what kind of equipment you need to do that kind of work, what you intend to do with the pictures you take, and what your overall financial condition and income is likely to be in the near future. Only by taking all of these things into consideration can you make a really good buying decision.
The whole reason you are feeling frustration right now is because you lack the knowledge you need to make a really good choice about "what to do"; obviously, there are a lot of very knowledgeable people on this forum relative to photography, but then I'm guessing most of them didn't become that knowledgeable over night; the more you learn about the technical aspects of photography in general, the less you will need to depend on someone else's advice. I think the smartest thing you could possibley do right now, would be to read a lot, take a LOT of pictures with the equipment you already have, and concentrate on vastly increasing your skills; if you do that, and if your enthusiasm for photography continues, sometime in the near future you'll KNOW what new camera you need to buy to do what YOU want to do.
Right now, you are perilously close to falling into the age old "Canon or Nikon" trap; that's one decision I wouldn't want anyone to make for me ! They both are capable of taking great pictures, obviously. But there are reasons why some people prefer one, and why other people prefer the other. One of the hardest things for any camera manufacturer to do, is to year after year, keep improving their cameras while at the same time, keeping the newer cameras compatible with all of the pricey "gadgets" that people have accumulated for the cameras from that company that they have owned. Here's the best example I can think of to illustrate what I mean; not too awfull long ago, there were NO....I. digital cameras 2. autofocusing lenses 3. automatic diaphragms 4. automatic film advance ...........and a whole bunch of other things that people take for granted now; another thing......most of the light meters in most of the 35mm cameras left "much to be desired". About this point in time, I bought my first really good 35mm camera; a Canon F-1; the battery in the F-1 was about the size and shape as an aspirin tablet; and they lasted for a year or two; (no wonder, because all it did was furnish power for the light meter)
back then, almost everyone had a big hand held light meter. Canon had previously had a line of lenses, (which I don't recall right now the letter designation), but they came out with this really GREAT new line of lenses, with, IMO, the BEST lens mount on ANY 35 mm lens line, which they called "breach lock"; a VERY secure and positive locking mechanism; absolutely NO "play" or "slop"; the new line of lenses were designated as "FD" lenses; (I think the old ones were "FL" ?)
Remember, the FD
lenses were "manual everything"....manual focus, manual aperture ring, and so on; camera bodies were entirely mechanical at the time. But the F-1 was Canon's "top" (and only) "pro" camera for quite some time; if you were a sports photographer, you bought a very expensive motor drive; if you needed LOTS of shots, fast, you bought a high dollar bulk film gadget (that held about 50 feet of film, and was motorized; depending on what you were doing, there were something like 5 or 6 different penta prisms, (each one doing something different), another expensive gadget to measure extremely low light levels (which were all called ASA back then) instead of "ISO"; Oh, I almost forgot......there were like 9 different focusing screens made for the F-1; ( I only has about 3 or 4 of them) ( at $50 per screen) You could spend 15K on gadgets for the F-1 and you were just getting started !
After a few years, Canon came out with another "pro" camera, the "new F-1" ! ( never did understand why not just call it "F-2"?) Needless to say, very few (if any) of the "gadjets" for the now "old F-1" worked with the "new F-1". Hey.....no probeblemo......I loved that camera! It took GREAT slides! It was a great camera; finally, and before the new F-1 had been around all that long, you started hearing about "digital cameras" that didn't use film ! ( I strongly suspect that Canon was working on all of this new digital stuff for the last 3 or 4 years of film, ( while people were still spending tons and tons of bucks on new FD
Then it finally happened; Canon says, "we're coming out with a new line of lenses, called "EOS"; and everyone asked, "but what are we gonna do with all of our great FD
lenses "? Canon's answer to that was......." they make great paperweights, door-stops, or you can sell them at auctions, ( for a penny on the $ )
Let me back up a year or so; while all of this digital revolution was getting started, Nikon came out with it's next to last killer film body, the F-5; the F-5 made everything before it look like something from the Flintstones ! Also, the F-5 uses Nikon's F-mount lenses; (which they had been making "for years"; you can't describe the F-5 without writing a book; anyway, for a few years there, every pro that shooits for Nat Geo, Outdoor Photography, etc etc etc was shooting Velvia with an F-5; and finally Nikon came out with the F-100, then the F-6; (I think the F-6 people got the shaft though, because Nikon was just starting to come out with digital bodies; and guess what ? Even though Nikon DID start designing all of their lenses to optimize with digital, you can STILL use every f-mount lens from the last "years and years" on your new D-whatever body !
To prove that point, I have two bird pictures on my Flickr page, both shot with the same 300 mm manual focus, f4 Nikkor lens, which was about 20 yrs old when I snagged it on eBay for about $125, about 10m years ago; I also used a Nikon 2X TC
bringing the focal length up to 600mm, and with the 1.5X
crop factor of my D 300s, bothe bird pictures were taken at an effective FL
of 900mm, on my Gitzo 340 with Arca Swiss ball head. (VERY stable support)
While the Nikon F-5 was still the "go to" film body, I got a free 3 month trip to Oahu, and while I was there I had a new F-5 and six new lenses for it, (including a brand new 600 mm /f4 and a whole bunch of other "goodies" at my disposal to play with for the summer); I guarantee you, if you ever get a chance to go to a world class botanical gardens (like Foster Gardens in Honolulu), and you have a F-5 Nikon and a F-1 Canon both in your bag, you probably just oughta leave the F-1 at the Hotel Ilikai ! After returning from Hawaii, I bought my own F-5, and it's all I used for the next 3 or so years. Finally, I got kinda burnt out on photography, (mostly due to buying film) when you start shooting Fuji Velvia and you do very much 8 fps stuff, you can go seriously broke, just buying film, then you STILL have to pay to have it processed.
After a few years, I was down to only shooting a very few rolls of film every now and then; Canon and Nikon had both come out with a bunch of digital bodies before I even started thinking about getting into digital; when I finally did decide to give it a try, just like the OP, I had no idea what camera to buy; so I bought a $189 Fuji mega zoom (at WalMart), and started reading about digital photography and started using the Fuji to make up my mind if I wanted to bother buying a D SLR.
How good do pictures really need to be ? That depends entirely on a whole bunch of things; who's going to be seeing them? Are you going to print them ! Or just stick them in Flickr for "the world" to look at; in other words, pictures just need to be "good enough"; everyone has their own criteria about what THEY consider "good enough". Before I even half way got that little Fuji camera figured out, I had an opportunity to attend the open house of a brand new airport that was still being worked on, on opening day; the airport has a 10,000 ft runway, and on opening day, no airplane had ever been on it, much less make a landing or a take off; the pilot flying the B 737 that made the very first landing on that brand new runway had gone to high school in that town; so it was a "big event", the Governor was there, and a LOT of people; because of someone I know quite well, I got to take my pictures of the first plane ever to land on the new runway from a super vantage point; standing in the shade directly underneath the jetbridge; (which was great, because it was hotter than hell that day !) I managed to get some pretty decent pictures, when the 737 touched down (and went through a bunch of loose mud that construction vehicles had left on the brand new concrete). Are the pictures "good enough" ? I'll put it this way; they look pretty good for a $189 camera from WalMart; later, after I had made some 18 X 24 prints of them, and created some custom graphics of my own design and matted and framed them, there are a number of them hanging on some walls where very few people ever get their pictures displayed; so in this case, I guess they are "good enough"; (they were also good enough to get me interested enough to finally buy my D-300s, which I sure wish I'd had to take that picture of the first plane to land on a brand new 10,000 runway. ) If I ever get around to transferring all of my files from my old iMac that died, to my new iMac, I may put them on my Flickr page for everyone to look at so they can tell me if they're good enough.
I have no idea what you like to take pictures of; Myself, I do little bit of everything; here's one more example of "good enough"; my best friend decided to start a sign business; he had to buy some pretty "pricey" equipment that most people who are just "enthusiasts" never get to play with. About 2 years ago, way before I bought my D 300s, a local business had this all wooden billboard on a busy state highway near where I live in Indiana; the original billboard was a hand painted picture of a local covered bridge, and each side was painted on four sheets of 4ft X 8ft plywood; the framework of the bill board was still in good condition, but the ply wood with the picture ( each sided is 8ft high X 16ft wide ) was in bad shape; so we ripped all the old plywood off and disposed of it; I then took a picture of the real covered bridge that was painted on the bill board, with the same little $189 Fuji camera; at first, my friend had planned to print the photo on 8 sheets of 4ft X 8ft alumalite, (which is a sandwich of two .30 sheets of aluminum bonded to a 3/16" core of corregated plastic. My friends 48" commercial ink jet printer only prints on roll stock, so to do an alumalite sign, you print the picture and graphics on paper-backed vinyl film, then you apply the film to the new, bare aluminum; vinyl printed signs have an average life-span of maybe 3 or 4 years; plus, doing a 4 panel sign takes a LOT of "matching pictures up"; after thinking about it for a day or two, he decided to have a big commercial printing plant in Indianapolis do the print job; a bunch of advantages going this route; first, because they have huge flatbed printers, they print directly on the alumalite, which give a longer life span; secondly, they have a huge shop, with every thing needed, and if they make a mistake, they just do it over and it costs you nothing for the wasted material; alumalite is almost $200 a 4'x8' panel, vinyl isn't cheap, and ink tanks for my friends printer are about $125 apiece, X five. We made all the arrangements with the print shop on the phone, then sent them an email with a file attached from my little Fuji, and three days later drove up to Indianapolis and picked up all 8 printed panels, all crated up and wrapped up; It took us less than 6 hours to place all the panels on the billboard frame, shoot stainless steel screws through the
panels into the framing, did a little touch up painting on the framing and the screw heads, and ended up with a tidy $3,500 net after paying the $1800 printing bill. I you don't think you can blow a file from a dinky little $189 camera up to 8' ft X 16', I'm going to be putting a shot taken with my D SLR on my Flickr page so everyone can see it for themselves.
Is it "sharp" ? Obviously, if you view it from 3 feet away, it's not that sharp; but it's a highway billboard.......people see it from the road as they drive by; to them, it's nice and sharp; so again, that picture, for what it's used for, is "sharp enough";
(plus the customer who paid the bill is delighted with it.)
I hope all of this will give you a few ideas.
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein