Although the fundaments of your review are mostly excellent, it is a very odd decision indeed to fail to mention the changes Nikon made from the previous D3300 model, particularly when you go to the trouble of showing a comparison table. Most prospective purchasers would be particularly interested in the omission of the ultrasonic sensor cleaner and use of a flash which is only half as powerful. Others might also be interested in the omission of the microphone socket or the apparently greater battery life offered by the D3400.
Steve B
May 11, 2019 9:09 am
Hi thanks for your review. I am not familiar with cameras so it’s nice of someone to cut through the marketing noise and be able to recommend a good bang for your buck camera like the d3400 based on their experience. “Good for the price” is most important to me at the beginner stage. Its funny that you mentioned that the ISO 25600 is basically included to pad the specifications because I was wondering how it managed to go so high compared to its competitors and I appreciated the comparison to the Canon you included. I’ll have a look at your beginners guides
Ed Toomey
November 12, 2018 7:55 am
I’m amateur hobbyist awaiting receiving my new 3400. Plan is to shoot hockey games this hockey season both from the stands AND standing at the glass. Would appreciate any/all suggestions for a telephoto lens. New and used. Thanks!
EXkurogane
June 18, 2018 2:05 am
If 645g is too heavy to you, you really need to go to the gym. I carry a high performance/gaming laptop with me wherever i go because i need its power to edit high resolution photos. The laptop is 2.8kg, the charger is almost another 1kg. And i never complain about weight. Not yet factoring the weight of my camera yet.
If f3.5 is too small for u, you need a f2.8 zoom lens, and that’s even bigger bad news to you. Regardless of whether you use a dslr or a mirrorless camera, a f2.8 zoom for either type of camera is going to weigh a lot. Unless you don’t mind using only a single 50mm or 35mm prime f1.8 lens.
You will carry 1 to 1.5kg of weight at the bare minimum if you want to be a serious hobbyist photographer (taking into consideration external flashes, extra battery and other accessories, and a camera bag itself already weigh several hundred grams).
coastcontact
June 17, 2018 12:08 am
Two more issues with this camera is the view screen is fixed not articulated and there is not GPS.
Those aren’t issues with the camera; they are features Nikon has never offered in this particular product line.
coastcontact
June 16, 2018 11:57 pm
As an amateur hobbyist I want a light weight easy to handle camera that offers a wide range of settings. This camera fails in at least three ways. 1) 22.8 oz (645 g) including battery with kit lens makes it too heavy. 2)The grip requires large hands. 3) Maximum aperture is 3.5.
If 645g is too heavy to you, you really need to go to the gym. I carry a high performance/gaming laptop with me wherever i go because i need its power to edit high resolution photos. The laptop is 2.8kg, the charger is almost another 1kg. And i never complain about weight. Not yet factoring the weight of my camera yet.
If f3.5 is too small for u, you need a f2.8 zoom lens, and that’s even bigger bad news to you. Regardless of whether you use a dslr or a mirrorless camera, a f2.8 zoom for either type of camera is going to weigh a lot. Unless you don’t mind using only a single 50mm or 35mm prime f1.8 lens.
You will carry 1 to 1.5kg of weight at the bare minimum if you want to be a serious hobbyist photographer (taking into consideration external flashes, extra battery and other accessories, and a camera bag itself already weigh several hundred grams).
Dale
June 14, 2018 1:23 pm
I actually and shoot a d3300. I shoot mostly landscapes and I like the size, weight and simplicity of this camera. I have owned bigger more complex dslr cameras including an full frame and I found it very difficult to tell any difference in a print up to 20×30. In addition I was tired of fiddling with options and menus and lugging the extra weight in the more complex cameras. Having shot manual film cameras for years, this camera is a dream. Auto ISO is awesome when the camera is off the tripod. A couple of additional differences between the d3300 and the d3400 which are important to me is the d3300 has an ultrasonic sensor cleaner found on all other modern Nikons, and a more powerful built in flash. For some reason the d3400 cut corners here.
The D3300 is great, similar in almost every way to the D3400. For a balance of weight/price/quality, this lineup (any camera from the D3200 onwards) is arguably the best option on the market. But it also is quite true that the newest versions in the line are not too much more advanced than the older ones, and Nikon has been cutting costs in a few smaller areas that they don’t think matter as much.
Yes, that’s another issue with the D3400 (which is the first camera in this series to forego metering capabilities with AF-D lenses). I had hoped Nikon would have gone the other way with compatibility over time, but it seems that is not the case.
Tomáš
June 13, 2018 2:22 am
Good review there, I was surprised at those duck shots actually as the autofocus really did work better than I’d imagined it would. Still, seems like mid to low entry Nikons do share the same characteristics as both 5600 and 3400 have excellent sensors and good autofocus but both are unashamedly similar to models that came out 6 years ago or thereabout. As a D3200 owner, I really do feel that the difference 6 years made is, frankly, almost nonexistent. I do wonder if this is telling of photography technology, at least in the DSLR territory, and how far it can go. For all other kinds of technology after all, 6 years alone, even in the absolutely most basic of entry levels, make a huge difference (think tvs or smartphones or even computers, for instance). But for both 5600 and 3400 there really isn’t much that has changed in what’s important (sensor and autofocus system, mainly), while I think that mirrorless technology has evolved a lot in the same timespan. I’m curious to see how long Nikon (and possibly Canon too, although I don’t know as much about them, admittedly) will be able to just reuse the same formula for years before mirrorless options catch up and blast by the low and mid-entry models.
Hi Tomáš Many times the last years I read that sensor technology did improve in quite big steps until 2012. Back then the theoretical limit was practically reached, it is said. My personal experience is the same. If I compare my (now old) D800E from 2012 with the newest D850 or the D4 (even the D3) with the D5 I cannot see much improvement regarding sensor sensitivity and noise of the RAW-files. The JPGs got a bit better but that is because of better algorithms. Of course other fields were improved, e.g. AF low light sensitivity or AF tracking speed. In real life I personally do use just one AF point and most of the time in AF-C mode. As you I do not see any reason to “upgrade” from my D3200 to the D3400. Battery life would be much improved, but a second battery is cheaper than a camera upgrade. Back in the 70s, 80s, early 90s Canon and Nikon did not release that many models over the years as nowadays. I wouldn’t mind if that is the case again. Keeps the value of your gear a little longer if you want to sell it one day. On the other hand you can get a used D4 in perfect state for $1’300 today and old D3200s with 18-55mm kit lenses (the old and better ones!) for not much more than $180. Thanks Spencer for your fine review. Cheers to both of you! -jan
Hi Jan, glad you liked the review, and I think you are quite right in terms of camera progress over the years. I will also second your preference for the older 18-55mm! I’m not a fan of the locking button on the new one, and I especially dislike Nikon’s decision to remove the VR switch.
Thank you, Tomáš! I was also surprised by the D3400’s autofocus when photographing that bird. I can’t say that it worked so well for every subject, but it was much better on balance than I had expected at first.
And yes, it is quite true that the progress since 2012 has been slow. Personally, I think the D3200 and beyond are all such “finalized” cameras – the ultimate expression of what Nikon wanted its entry-level DSLR to be – that the company would need to do a ground-up redesign in order to create a true upgrade.
Given that the release dates of the D3100 onward were in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, it seems to me that we are due for a D3500 (or similar) before too long! Perhaps Nikon will take a different route with it. There has been some speculation that they are planning a mirrorless camera at this level, which would be pretty intriguing, and might just count as a ground-up redesign.
Although the fundaments of your review are mostly excellent, it is a very odd decision indeed to fail to mention the changes Nikon made from the previous D3300 model, particularly when you go to the trouble of showing a comparison table. Most prospective purchasers would be particularly interested in the omission of the ultrasonic sensor cleaner and use of a flash which is only half as powerful. Others might also be interested in the omission of the microphone socket or the apparently greater battery life offered by the D3400.
Hi thanks for your review. I am not familiar with cameras so it’s nice of someone to cut through the marketing noise and be able to recommend a good bang for your buck camera like the d3400 based on their experience. “Good for the price” is most important to me at the beginner stage. Its funny that you mentioned that the ISO 25600 is basically included to pad the specifications because I was wondering how it managed to go so high compared to its competitors and I appreciated the comparison to the Canon you included. I’ll have a look at your beginners guides
I’m amateur hobbyist awaiting receiving my new 3400.
Plan is to shoot hockey games this hockey season both from the stands AND standing at the glass. Would appreciate any/all suggestions for a telephoto lens. New and used.
Thanks!
If 645g is too heavy to you, you really need to go to the gym. I carry a high performance/gaming laptop with me wherever i go because i need its power to edit high resolution photos. The laptop is 2.8kg, the charger is almost another 1kg. And i never complain about weight. Not yet factoring the weight of my camera yet.
If f3.5 is too small for u, you need a f2.8 zoom lens, and that’s even bigger bad news to you. Regardless of whether you use a dslr or a mirrorless camera, a f2.8 zoom for either type of camera is going to weigh a lot. Unless you don’t mind using only a single 50mm or 35mm prime f1.8 lens.
You will carry 1 to 1.5kg of weight at the bare minimum if you want to be a serious hobbyist photographer (taking into consideration external flashes, extra battery and other accessories, and a camera bag itself already weigh several hundred grams).
Two more issues with this camera is the view screen is fixed not articulated and there is not GPS.
Those aren’t issues with the camera; they are features Nikon has never offered in this particular product line.
As an amateur hobbyist I want a light weight easy to handle camera that offers a wide range of settings. This camera fails in at least three ways. 1) 22.8 oz (645 g) including battery with kit lens makes it too heavy. 2)The grip requires large hands. 3) Maximum aperture is 3.5.
If 645g is too heavy to you, you really need to go to the gym. I carry a high performance/gaming laptop with me wherever i go because i need its power to edit high resolution photos. The laptop is 2.8kg, the charger is almost another 1kg. And i never complain about weight. Not yet factoring the weight of my camera yet.
If f3.5 is too small for u, you need a f2.8 zoom lens, and that’s even bigger bad news to you. Regardless of whether you use a dslr or a mirrorless camera, a f2.8 zoom for either type of camera is going to weigh a lot. Unless you don’t mind using only a single 50mm or 35mm prime f1.8 lens.
You will carry 1 to 1.5kg of weight at the bare minimum if you want to be a serious hobbyist photographer (taking into consideration external flashes, extra battery and other accessories, and a camera bag itself already weigh several hundred grams).
I actually and shoot a d3300. I shoot mostly landscapes and I like the size, weight and simplicity of this camera. I have owned bigger more complex dslr cameras including an full frame and I found it very difficult to tell any difference in a print up to 20×30. In addition I was tired of fiddling with options and menus and lugging the extra weight in the more complex cameras. Having shot manual film cameras for years, this camera is a dream. Auto ISO is awesome when the camera is off the tripod. A couple of additional differences between the d3300 and the d3400 which are important to me is the d3300 has an ultrasonic sensor cleaner found on all other modern Nikons, and a more powerful built in flash. For some reason the d3400 cut corners here.
The D3300 is great, similar in almost every way to the D3400. For a balance of weight/price/quality, this lineup (any camera from the D3200 onwards) is arguably the best option on the market. But it also is quite true that the newest versions in the line are not too much more advanced than the older ones, and Nikon has been cutting costs in a few smaller areas that they don’t think matter as much.
No metering with AF-D lenses !
Yes, that’s another issue with the D3400 (which is the first camera in this series to forego metering capabilities with AF-D lenses). I had hoped Nikon would have gone the other way with compatibility over time, but it seems that is not the case.
Good review there, I was surprised at those duck shots actually as the autofocus really did work better than I’d imagined it would.
Still, seems like mid to low entry Nikons do share the same characteristics as both 5600 and 3400 have excellent sensors and good autofocus but both are unashamedly similar to models that came out 6 years ago or thereabout. As a D3200 owner, I really do feel that the difference 6 years made is, frankly, almost nonexistent.
I do wonder if this is telling of photography technology, at least in the DSLR territory, and how far it can go. For all other kinds of technology after all, 6 years alone, even in the absolutely most basic of entry levels, make a huge difference (think tvs or smartphones or even computers, for instance). But for both 5600 and 3400 there really isn’t much that has changed in what’s important (sensor and autofocus system, mainly), while I think that mirrorless technology has evolved a lot in the same timespan. I’m curious to see how long Nikon (and possibly Canon too, although I don’t know as much about them, admittedly) will be able to just reuse the same formula for years before mirrorless options catch up and blast by the low and mid-entry models.
Hi Tomáš
Many times the last years I read that sensor technology did improve in quite big steps until 2012. Back then the theoretical limit was practically reached, it is said. My personal experience is the same. If I compare my (now old) D800E from 2012 with the newest D850 or the D4 (even the D3) with the D5 I cannot see much improvement regarding sensor sensitivity and noise of the RAW-files. The JPGs got a bit better but that is because of better algorithms. Of course other fields were improved, e.g. AF low light sensitivity or AF tracking speed. In real life I personally do use just one AF point and most of the time in AF-C mode.
As you I do not see any reason to “upgrade” from my D3200 to the D3400. Battery life would be much improved, but a second battery is cheaper than a camera upgrade.
Back in the 70s, 80s, early 90s Canon and Nikon did not release that many models over the years as nowadays. I wouldn’t mind if that is the case again. Keeps the value of your gear a little longer if you want to sell it one day. On the other hand you can get a used D4 in perfect state for $1’300 today and old D3200s with 18-55mm kit lenses (the old and better ones!) for not much more than $180.
Thanks Spencer for your fine review. Cheers to both of you!
-jan
Hi Jan, glad you liked the review, and I think you are quite right in terms of camera progress over the years. I will also second your preference for the older 18-55mm! I’m not a fan of the locking button on the new one, and I especially dislike Nikon’s decision to remove the VR switch.
Thank you, Tomáš! I was also surprised by the D3400’s autofocus when photographing that bird. I can’t say that it worked so well for every subject, but it was much better on balance than I had expected at first.
And yes, it is quite true that the progress since 2012 has been slow. Personally, I think the D3200 and beyond are all such “finalized” cameras – the ultimate expression of what Nikon wanted its entry-level DSLR to be – that the company would need to do a ground-up redesign in order to create a true upgrade.
Given that the release dates of the D3100 onward were in 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016, it seems to me that we are due for a D3500 (or similar) before too long! Perhaps Nikon will take a different route with it. There has been some speculation that they are planning a mirrorless camera at this level, which would be pretty intriguing, and might just count as a ground-up redesign.