Engadget:
For those who want a less advanced DSLR, the Japanese manufacturer has others such as its new D3400. This entry-level shooter features a 24.2-megapixel CMOS sensor (DX-format) alongside the Expeed 4 processor, which Nikon claims brings improved auto white balance performance and better image quality in low-light scenarios. The D3400 also boasts an ISO range of 100-25,600, 11-point autofocus system, 5-fps continuous shooting and 1080p video at up to 60 fps. These are the sort of specs you’d expect from beginner DSLRs, but the lack of 4K recording will be a downside for some people.
The D3400 will hit stores in “early” September for $650, in a kit that includes an AF-P DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 G VR lens.
This looks to be a nice beginner camera as long as you don’t need/want 4K recording or wifi connectivity (which is still a sore spot for me).
At this point, I’m done with DX-format Nikon cameras and lenses. I have accumulated a bunch of old Nikkor AF and manual focus lenses over the decades, but have only 2 DX-format lenses. And Nikon now has a full-frame FX-format line of camera bodies that apparently are compatible with all my old lenses.
I just with Nikon had gone straight to full-frame FX-format sensors instead of introducing the DX line.
It’s a nice starter kit, but I don’t feel this is an upgrade over the previous camera. They removed sensor cleaning and the external mic jack. Everything else is pretty much the same. Oh, and did I mention that the iOS version Snapbridge app is NOT available yet? (As of 08/17) So no wireless for you.
The problem with the D3000-series cameras is that while they’re intended for entry-level and “budget” buyers, they actually hinder those buyers by removing compatibility with the huge variety of older Nikon AF lenses that would most help those buyers expand their skills.
I think most D3400 buyers would be much better off with a used D90, D300 or D7000, which will give them a far bigger (and less expensive) selection of lenses to choose from. The camera and lenses will also depreciate far less (probably not at all, in the case of lenses), meaning that when they do decide to upgrade, their initial investment will pay them back rather than having sunk radically in value.
Of course Nikon would like everybody to buy all-new lenses to go along with their nice new D3400, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
FX has its own share of problems: the equipment has become bulky and unwieldy, especially a lot of the newer FX zooms, which approach the diameter of a Big Gulp lid. I like the older lenses, but DX is a great compromise, with sharp, compact, modern lenses that are far less expensive than the FX stuff, and easier to handle.
Nikon made a strategic error by neglecting DX for years, hoping to force users towards FX in order to expand their shrinking revenues and profits. You might say they found the elasticity limit of their customer base, many of which instead jumped ship, or just gave up. Now with the release of the D500 it looks as though they’ve seen the light and will again give DX some attention.
“FX has its own share of problems: the equipment has become bulky and unwieldy, especially a lot of the newer FX zooms,”
Not really. Light matters above all else in photography. Larger sensor, more light. That is good enough reason to carry larger equipment. Unwieldy? Hardly.
It’s a matter of taste, of course, and you can carry that argument on up to medium format and beyond, or down to mirrorless and beyond. But in terms of image quality, the FX advantage over DX is approximately one stop: one stop better low-light capability, one stop better dynamic range, and one stop better subject isolation.
With the bulk of, say, a D800 body and 24-70/2.8 lens, you are carrying a big, heavy, intimidating piece of equipment. I think most photographers would be better off with a lighter, more flexible kit, and frankly, more attention to the craft than to having “the best” hardware.
To put it another way, I’ve seen extraordinary photography done with the likes of a used D70, and a lot of mediocrity from people who spend $5k. That by no means makes the D70 better, but my point is largely that the relative advantages of various formats and equipment choices pales in comparison to the photographer’s flexibility (flexibility in all senses), which is inevitably affected by the wieldyness of their equipment.