I might recommend looking at Fuji. But certainly not without comparing it to everything else.

Go somewhere like a camera store where they have a lot of choices and see what she likes.
Majority of people who try Fuji say they have much more fun shooting than they have had before (myself included).

They have a robust lens system, and a variety of styles of cameras.

But definitely don’t take someone’s word for what you should get, especially spending that kind of money.
Go somewhere where they can show you and let you try a wide range. All I’m saying is it doesn’t have to be limited to a canikon DSLR; look at mirrorless from everyone as well.

Picking a new camera system is like picking a major in college. The decision you make can have profound effects down the road, and it can be costly to backtrack and change your mind later.

This gets discussed a lot here, and the answers are often close to the same.

I personally can't recommend a Nikon DSLR that isn't at least a D7xxx for someone that's an enthusiast. The 3xxx and 5xxx series are too crippled for someone that actually enjoys photography.

Basic features are hidden in menus or behind complicated button combinations, there's not a front wheel for adjusting settings, the button selection is very limited.

@NorthPolar is the absolute king of finding deals, and if there's one to be had he can surely scare something up.

I hear that a lot (mostly from people that haven’t used them seriously), and I’m curious which is the reason I’m following up here.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve shot digital since the first DSLRs were invented (I worked for Kodak at the time, and I had a breadboard version of the first prototypes attached to Nikon F cameras). I shot Canon since the D30 and I shot professionally with Canon 1 series cameras through every version from the original 1D and 1DS to the 1DX, so I wasn’t playing with anything but the best. I also owned all L lenses up to a 600/4 and including several versions of the 16-35, 24/28-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 100-400, 300/2.8, 400/2.8 etc. I only say this to establish that I’m comparing to the highest end DSLR gear there is.

I shot catalog, fashion, swimwear, sports including motor sports with that system, and a lot of it was location work in the Caribbean, so I travelled with it a lot as well.

I bought a Fuji X-T1 a few years ago as a travel camera because the Canon stuff was too big and bulky to take on an extended travel trip and honestly it was too heavy for extended shooting. I’d been doing that for years, and for a pleasure trip, I wanted light and small. I compared it to everything at the time from Sony APS-C and full frame to several 4/3s cameras, and to everything from Nikon and Canon at the time. I chose Fuji based on feel, features, and of course the lens system. I figured if it didn’t work out, I could exchange it for something else or return it altogether. I always had a full Canon kit to fall back to.

Bottom line - I never shot Canon again. The Fuji turned out to be such a great camera and so much fun to shoot with that even in its weakest area, autofocus, I worked harder to make it work because it was that much more rewarding. The other area where it is/was lacking is in long telephoto, which Fuji has just started to fill with the 200/F2. This is a lens that can now fulfill my sports/motor sports interests. If they do a longer version, I think they can fulfill wildlife photographers' needs as well.

Along the way with the X-T2 and now the X-T3, autofocus has come a long way. I don’t feel handicapped in anyway compared to anything else, and the X-T3 can shoot 30fps. APS-C has been more than enough for catalog print work as far as sensor size, and I’ve made large 24x36 prints that looked amazing. I feel much better shooting and traveling with the new system.

So my question to anyone that says mirrorless is not there yet, I’d love to hear the real reasons why. Sure batteries are smaller, but I can add my grip and two more batteries. While the official stats say 350-500 shots per battery, shooters are getting 1500 or more per battery. So with a grip we’re talking about 4500 shots. Not sure who shoots more than that, but I’ve never run out of battery during an entire day of shooting. But if I did, a spare would take seconds to swap out. And I can go way lighter and smaller without the grip if I want.

I shoot in the rain, around waterfalls, and on sandy beaches and weather nor sealing has never been an issue. Cameras and most "red badge" lenses are weather sealed. There's videos of the camera being fully submerged and functioning afterwards.

In addition there are tons of other features/advantages: electronic/quiet shutter, haven’t even touched on video capabilities because I don’t use them, the ability to see your exposure in the viewfinder, no blackout high speed shooting so you can follow your subject, and the list goes on and on...

Maybe we can/should start a new thread for QandA about mirrorless if anyone wants. Bottom line is IMHO you don’t have to give up anything going to mirrorlesss. And if you’re looking to get into a new system, at least look at the options. If you’re deeply vested in a system, you still have mirrorless options with the same brand of camera or using adapters. Hell I can use the Canon 800mm on my Fuji or Sony if I wanted to, or a 50 year old Russian manual focus lens.

Magnesium body, smaller size, lighter weight, great performance- all reasons to at least give a mirrorless camera a shot. One could ask- why shoot a full size DSLR? What advantage does that provide?