D*****l introduces a host of color balance issues. I mean, every color film has color balance issues, but that's why they have specific purposes. I don't know anyone in my crit classes who shoots d*****l that doesn't make hideous color. I know it's possible to get good results, but I wouldn't recommend it for a beginner.
If one is interested only in exposure latitude, then colour balance is fairly meaningless, in fact colour itself can detract from the image. Especially if the photographer's eye is B&W, my colour work, for example is terrible, I hate it, and even images shot with the d*****l camera are often converted to B&W, to make them work. In fact it's too bad there are no B&W papers for colour negatives anymore, which would give the OP a better perspective on the exposure, by eliminating the image colour, for a better way of seeing how the exposure itself worked. A B&W reversal paper would be an ideal, in that you could contact print your slides to see how they fair.
As for the best camera technology for a beginner, I think would be something like a Seagull, where the camera is fully manual, and your forced to determine your exposure by means other then leaving the decision up to a computer inside the camera. The best computer for determining the optimum exposure for any image is the one between the photographers ears. Especially if the photographer looks at the scene, and knows how the exposure determined by the meter is merely a starting point. Any good film can be used, even B&W film which has the widest latitude, will provide an image that looks different if your up or down one stop from optimum.
I think that is why so many d*****l images look like crap, the photographer puts the camera on full auto, sets the ISO as high as it will go, and fires away. If you shoot a d****l camera by thinking about the exposure then you CAN get decent results, but it does mean that your camera spends most of it's time in manual exposure mode, or the exposure compensation dial is the first part to wear out.