It's not a difficult task provided you have some foundation knowledge and skill in photography. No, beginners should not start out with a fully automatic camera; at least invest in the craft of photography: conceptualisation, visual-spatial arrangement, identification of subject matter and interpreting it with the camera (not just through it). You will certainly learn more about exposure nuances with a manual camera than looking through a bells-and-whistles multipattern whatchamacallit with 10fps drive. Even autofocus robs people of creative control. My 67 has rudimentary TTL, but I use it 95% of the time as a manual camera, working through a hand-held multi-spot matrix to arrive at the exposure and transferring this to the camera; this means that the camera is not deciding how the scene should be exposed but how I decide (and this was the major tenet of photography teaching decades ago, but not so much now). Yes, I do have one of those bells-and-whistles auto-everything 10fps beasts, a carry over from when I did both road cycling and mountain biking competition photography and then studio work two decades ago. Chances are here on APUG there are individuals who started out with entirely manual medium or large format and have never touched a camera with automation — I don't know, I suspect they are here, not a great number of them. Match-needle metering has been a benchmark for beginners for many decades, from there they can apply plus or minus exposure compensation — my first classes (1977) were with a Pentax K1000!, then an Olympus OM10. In summary, manual will teach you a lot more about exposure than auto, but where situations and time dictate, give the camera enough rope to get you over the line, but always consider yourself to be in charge of the photograph, and never always the camera.