NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Almass on August 17, 2016, 12:27:18
-
Cheap and Cheerful.....the new Nikon D3400
When you need a camera to forget in the car, go for a walkabout, ditch in the bottom of a bag, shrink wrap it and go to the beach and sand.......and simply take photos......
Slap a proper prime on the 24meg sensor and you will be happy as Larry.
Slap the new 70/300 and you will be laughing.
I use low end and high end cameras....it is the in betweens which I dislike.
Now I can have a choice using my Canon 100D and the new Nikon D3400.
It is the sleeper cameras which are most fun. A D3400 with a 58G when you need to go incognito in certain environments...... it is the equivalent of a cupcake with tons of cream on top ;)
The secret is in the sauce= Lens + Processing (as long as you shoot flat and process from flat).
-
It even has a built-in Instruction Guide in case you haven't used a DSLR before .... And the means of adding instantaneously your images to the already overflowing mess of forgettable pictures on the 'net. I wonder which camera will be the first to offer a feature by which the picture is uploaded, then automatically deleted in camera?
Agree this is the kind of camera to chuck in the booth of the car until the occasion for which it is needed. Takes same batteries as the D3200 (UV camera), D5300 (my main IR body) and the Df (work horse), by the way.
A pentamirror finder means it might not work well with a Noct, though :D
-
It is good that D3400 still make wifi function at all usable. The wifi function of D750 is virtually abandoned...
-
I wonder which camera will be the first to offer a feature by which the picture is uploaded, then automatically deleted in camera?
LMAO ;)
-
Nice little camera
I do not understand the release of 2 new versions of the 18-55, and 2 new 70-300
-
I wonder which camera will be the first to offer a feature by which the picture is uploaded, then automatically deleted in camera?
same with "Almass". i need this :o :o :o
-
In some areas, the camera has to be as affordable as possible. Non-VR versions would be for that market?
-
In some areas, the camera has to be as affordable as possible. Non-VR versions would be for that market?
Absolutelly , I'm still puzzle about why develop a new version ?
A D40 I purcahsed in 2009 came a 18-55 zoom with no VR
-
AF-P is for better LV/video AF, and for compatibility with future mirrorless cameras.
-
.... And the means of adding instantaneously your images to the already overflowing mess of forgettable pictures on the 'net. I wonder which camera will be the first to offer a feature by which the picture is uploaded, then automatically deleted in camera?
.....
Even better! How about a camera that deletes the images in camera prior to them being added to the mess of forgettable images(esp selfies!) already infesting the net! :p
-
Even better! How about a camera that deletes the images in camera prior to them being added to the mess of forgettable images(esp selfies!) already infesting the net! :p
Or an artificially intelligent camera that compares the image to "good" pics online and deletes it automagically if it is not "good enough".
The user sets his qualification level in camera from
"beginner" = 1 or 2 out of 10 (all 0 value shots are deleted)
to
"professional" = 8 to 10 out of 10 (all 7 value and below are deleted)
Ultimate gamification!
"Professional" saves tons of card space.
-
Absolutelly , I'm still puzzle about why develop a new version ?
A D40 I purcahsed in 2009 came a 18-55 zoom with no VR
I used that very combo, too. Great combo. But the very first VR version didn't work as well with D7000 as the D40/non-VR combo. The sensor of higher resolution would require better optics, both in terms of resolving power and field flatness.
-
Or an artificially intelligent camera that compares the image to "good" pics online and deletes it automagically if it is not "good enough".
The user sets his qualification level in camera from
"beginner" = 1 or 2 out of 10 (all 0 value shots are deleted)
to
"professional" = 8 to 10 out of 10 (all 7 value and below are deleted)
Ultimate gamification!
"Professional" saves tons of card space.
It would make equipment cheaper too. Aim at a pond with the kit lens, and it automatically provides a wide angle shot, mountain range in background, a rocky shore, a piece of driftwood in the cove, and HDR without having to provide it in the camera. For the upscale model they'll add a button on the back: Insert a-sun; b- moon; c- dramatic cloud.
e.t.a. I seem to have messed up the quotes....
-
Nice little camera
I do not understand the release of 2 new versions of the 18-55, and 2 new 70-300
I agree. The 18-55 G VR II (with collapsible body) was introduced only in early 2014, it's hardly an old lens and would have been designed for the current crop or 24MP DX cameras. To see yet another 18-55 zoom so quickly is strange. One difference is that the new lens is IF. The previous versions were two-group zooms where focus is achieved by moving the entire front group. The new IF focusing is probably required for the new stepper AF motor. 55mm filter ... does not match any other Nikon F-mount lens.
I wonder if the AF-P 70-300/4.5-6.3 is a replacement for the AF-S 55-300/4.5-5.6 VR? The new lens has similar specification, slightly less zoom range at the wide end, which probably is not important to most users, and 1/3 stop slower at the telephoto end. Also full-time manual focus over-ride which is missing on the older lens. I wonder how popular the non-VR version will be, with this sort of long slow lens really needs image stabilisation unless lighting is very good. 58mm filter ... does not match the new AF-P 18-55 :o
-
The old 55-300 uses a 58 mm. filter though, so that's not changed.
I did not notice whether the new 70-300 has a rotating front element. That's one thing I find very irritating in the older low-end DX lenses, including the 55-300.
Edit to add: I see from looking a bit further that this lens is IF, which pretty much guarantees that the front element does not turn. At least that's something.
-
The developments of individual technologies and their introductions are not necessarily in synch with each other. For example, Nikon should have introduced the fluorine coating when Nikon released 14-24-2.8 zoom which cannot accept front filters (don't mention that humongous Lee filter holder!). The same may go with the step AF motor: it should have been incorporated with the first collapsible kit zoom.
The fluorine coating could be applied to the pre-existing lenses, though, as NIC was replaced by SIC.
-
I need to make a correction to my website: the 55-300 is not IF (IF lenses never have rotating filters...)
The new AF-P is IF so we can be pretty certain the filter does not rotate.
For what it's worth, I often use a polarizer with my series-E 75-150, which has a rotating filter. It's not a big problem, you get used to it - focus first, then adjust the polariser.
Here is a comparison with similar DX zooms. They all follow a fairly similar arrangement, the new lens is perhaps closer to the 55-200 with just one small ED element in the middle group.
AF-S 55-200VR
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimaging.nikon.com%2Flineup%2Flens%2Fzoom%2Ftelephotozoom%2Faf-s_dx_vr_zoom55-200mmf_4-56g_if%2Fimg%2Fpic_004.jpg&hash=7849e5fe155303d57815b2a3647b6cdae1451f88)
AF-P 70-300
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimaging.nikon.com%2Flineup%2Flens%2Fzoom%2Ftelephotozoom%2Faf-p_dx_70-300mmf_45-63g_ed%2Fimg%2Flensonstruction.png&hash=c01aa2f42ddc2195e4aeaedf8b279ff2fc83cacc)
AF-S 55-300
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimaging.nikon.com%2Flineup%2Flens%2Fzoom%2Ftelephotozoom%2Faf-s_nikkor55-300mmf_45-56g_ed_vr%2Fimg%2Fpic_004.jpg&hash=26f78d35489039e54e1f3be060e96528bf89d364)
-
A couple of links:
http://www.nikon.com/news/2016/0817_dslr_01.htm
http://petapixel.com/2016/08/17/nikon-unveils-d3400-snapbridge-better-battery-adds-4-kit-lenses/
-
According to Nikon website, the conventional 55-300 can focus up to 1.1m, and the largest magnification factor is 0.28x. The new 70-300 can focus up to 1.1m, but the largest magnification factor is 0.22x. It suggests that the new 70-300 uses a heavy focal length shortening trick.
-
Is the new 70-300 a dx lens?
-
According to Nikon website, the conventional 55-300 can focus up to 1.1m, and the largest magnification factor is 0.28x. The new 70-300 can focus up to 1.1m, but the largest magnification factor is 0.22x. It suggests that the new 70-300 uses a heavy focal length shortening trick.
Exactly what you would expect when comparing a non-IF lens with an IF lens.
Fons: Yes the new lens is DX.
Most of this thread is about the lenses, maybe it should be split out into the lens section...
Getting back to the D3400, I'm surprised it doesn't have a touch-screen, I think that would be an attractive feature for this part of the market. Maybe the D3500?
-
Yes, the new 70-300 is a DX lens.
The purpose of D3400 seems to be more about reducing the cost. In addition to the external microphone input and the dust shaker, the IR remote sensor on the rear panel has been omitted. There seems to be no room for the touch-screen function which should raise the cost.
-
Hi,
no ultrasonic sensorcleaning. Snapbridge which does not work properly. Buy a 3300 or better the 5300.
Harald
-
Yes, the new 70-300 is a DX lens.
The purpose of D3400 seems to be more about reducing the cost. In addition to the external microphone input and the dust shaker, the IR remote sensor on the rear panel has been omitted. There seems to be no room for the touch-screen function which should raise the cost.
Nikon seems unable to make up its mind on the IR remote sensor. It was on the D3000, off the D3100, back on the D32 and 33 front and rear, now it's half off on the D3400? I suppose it's a symptom of our selfie-obsessed age that they left it on the front and took it off the back, which is the side some of us use a lot.
For those unfamiliar with the beast, the D3200, at least, has no true "time" shutter function except through the IR remote, which turns B into T. It is, therefore, the only appropriate way to take a time exposure. That actually works very well, and, not to overstate the issue, I think it's utterly stupid to omit it!
-
A pentamirror finder means it might not work well with a Noct, though :D
Why is this?
-
A pentamirror is smaller and darker than a real pentaprism. That is perhaps OK with a low-end zoom using AF and the finder mainly serves to frame a saubject, however, will cause troubles with the Noct that really requires critically accurate focusing.
-
A pentamirror is smaller and darker than a real pentaprism. That is perhaps OK with a low-end zoom using AF and the finder mainly serves to frame a saubject, however, will cause troubles with the Noct that really requires critically accurate focusing.
Silly me, when I read your original post, I thought of the new 58 f/1.4 which is AF, not the actual MF Noct Nikkor. I can see this lens would be difficult to focus with a dark screen. What about using the focus indicator with a Noct? Are you saying it is not accurate enough for focusing an f/1.2 lens? Would an f/1.2 AF lens (if it existed) have the same problem with focus? Maybe this is why the 58 is f/1.4 instead of f/1.2?
If the Noct requires that critically accurate focusing, then doesn't that also imply you should replace the focusing screen with a split-image screen designed for MF?
-
Camera and viewfinder properties determine whether focusing the Noct is possible. This behaviour might be unpredictable and needs to be tested in practice. LiveView might solve focusing issues, if it functions well enough for the purpose. Not all Nikons with LV can claim this functionality.
'Green Dot 'focusing stresses the focusing accuracy and alignments of the entire chain from lens to camera, finder, and user eyesight and might not be good enough for the Noct. This lens learns you the reality behind the phrase 'razor-thin depth of field'.
Nikon Df, either with stock screen or the K3, makes focusing the Noct quite easy. The D500 sometimes behave in a similar fashion, but as stated before, cannot always be trusted.
-
The purpose of D3400 seems to be more about reducing the cost. In addition to the external microphone input and the dust shaker, the IR remote sensor on the rear panel has been omitted. There seems to be no room for the touch-screen function which should raise the cost.
Many of the missing features are already on other low-end models which sold in millions, with those volumes the components can't cost more than a few extra dollars. It seems Nikon aims to reduce costs (at all costs!) rather than adding value. Maybe they also try to create more separation between this model and the D5500.
-
Bjorn, I have a D3200, but alas, no Noct to try it out on. I would be glad to do a detailed report on this if you should happen to have an extra one lying around that I can borrow.... ;D
My experience with the old 50/1.4 is that the focus dot is usually OK but not unerring, and all in all the whole enterprise is not all that enjoyable. When I test under controlled conditions on things like book bindings, it's not bad but in the wild with less conspicuously contrasty subjects, it's hit or miss. Whether it's the dimness or the smallness of the finder or both, the little DX is not the ideal machine for manual focusing. Even the F2 AI, which on an F was so sharp it was dangerous, is a challenge on this one.
On a tripod, live view works OK, and generally agrees with the focus dot (at least mine, which is accurate at least), but in the real world I find it impossible to hold steadily enough.
-
just a simple question. how would the D3XXX bodies work with Ai lenses? surely the maximum aperture tab and the camera has some form of communication, but what does that do? :o :o :o
i know that there will be no metering on these bodies with Ai lenses or will this tab actually facilitate that much like how the aperture prong does to the Nikkormat and DP-11 finders. Thanks.
-
just a simple question. how would the D3XXX bodies work with Ai lenses? surely the maximum aperture tab and the camera has some form of communication, but what does that do? :o :o :o
i know that there will be no metering on these bodies with Ai lenses or will this tab actually facilitate that much like how the aperture prong does to the Nikkormat and DP-11 finders. Thanks.
The maximum aperture tab on a manual lens does absolutely nothing. I suppose the camera must get an on-off message from the switch but it does not use it. It only functions with AF lenses that have an aperture ring, which will not work unless they actuate the camera's switch. By the way, some such lenses have a sharpish corner on that tab, and on the newer cameras in which that switch is pushed down instead of sideways, it can hit wrong, and the lens will mount without correctly registering, and can eventually damage the switch. A tiny bit of burnishing on the leading corner of an offending lens will fix it. However, the change of that switch from sideways to up and down also makes it possible to mount unmodified pre-AI lenses without harm. The difference between an unconverted old lens, a partially converted one, a fully converted one, and an AI lens on this camera is completely nil.
-
The maximum aperture tab on a manual lens does absolutely nothing. I suppose the camera must get an on-off message from the switch but it does not use it. It only functions with AF lenses that have an aperture ring, which will not work unless they actuate the camera's switch. By the way, some such lenses have a sharpish corner on that tab, and on the newer cameras in which that switch is pushed down instead of sideways, it can hit wrong, and the lens will mount without correctly registering, and can eventually damage the switch. A tiny bit of burnishing on the leading corner of an offending lens will fix it. However, the change of that switch from sideways to up and down also makes it possible to mount unmodified pre-AI lenses without harm. The difference between an unconverted old lens, a partially converted one, a fully converted one, and an AI lens on this camera is completely nil.
Thank you very much Matthew, that was all I needed to know. I think that it only tells the camera that an AF-D/AF lens is not on it's min or max aperture and gives you the EE error. :o :o :o
I was looking into the D3XXX bodies for macro work because you essentially get the D7200 sensor on a smaller body. I also mounted a non-Ai lens and it seemed OK, but without meterinf, of course.
I also noticed that there is a bit of a lag between pressing the shutter and actually making an exposure. it feels like the X100s to be honest. I will check this again on the D3400 and I hope that is NOT the case.
the pentamirror issue is also something to be aware of when using macro lenses with the PN-11.
-
While it is true that most old lenses, pre-AI included, will mount on the 3xxx series, some have a rear flange that might be thick enough to brush against the camera front plate and have the potential of getting stuck. Thus try any candidate lens carefully and if there is any resistance, don't force it to mount and use that lens without further modification.
The other points made by Matthew are valid. Since virtually all my manual lenses are CPU-modified by now, the minimum-aperture tab is functional even for them. To maximise compatibility for all possible combinations of lenses, extension rings, bellows devices, etc., I push the tab into its locked position and seal it there by a small piece of plastic or similar. A small drop of epoxy glue finishes the job. Thus, the camera always "sees" the lens being positioned at its smallest aperture.
The minimum-aperture tab is a remnant from the period of AF lenses, ie. those with screw-driver coupling and aperture ring. Modern AFS lenses are all G or E and don't need it. There are a few AFS lenses with aperture ring though, such as 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, and maybe some more that I can't recall at present, that will not operate unless the tab is depressed to its locked position. As the 3xxx/5xxx/7xxx series all lack the screw driver AF coupler, using AF lenses on them will facilitate metering, but otherwise the lens operates by manual focus only.
-
Thus, the camera always "sees" the lens being positioned at its smallest aperture.
this is so smart :o :o :o
I may probably just use a plastic wedge. (for resale purposes)
-
A piece of a broken matchstick will serve the same purpose and can easily be removed later. Wood compresses laterally and thus locks the tab well.
-
Nikon Df, either with stock screen or the K3, makes focusing the Noct quite easy. The D500 sometimes behave in a similar fashion, but as stated before, cannot always be trusted.
I've seen you state this before about the type B focusing screen and I always find it very surprising that you can eye-ball focus on this screen accurately enough without magnification. With both my D300 and my F100, I find it very difficult to judge focus just by eyeballing the screen. This seems especially problematic given the fact that these cameras effectively limit the minimum aperture when looking through the viewfinder to f/2.8 due to limitations in the viewfinder's optical path. Is the Df and its screen better in this respect than the D300 and F100? I thought the F100 also used the same type B screen.
It's even worse now for me as I have become far-sighted as I age and now need to dial in a diopter adjustment on my viewfinder. I did this by adjusting the diopter until I could comfortably see the image on the focusing screen again, but who knows how accurate this adjustment is given that no measurements were taken.
-
The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes :D Images taken with the Noct on the Df are as sharp as I can get them and that means more to me than any metric relevant or not.
On the other hand, I cannot attain the same performance with my D3X, D3S, or D800 and even the D500, touted as being superb for manual focusing, isn't always focused with the accuracy I want.
FYI I am near-sighted ( around -4/-4.25) although less so over the years, and tend to use under-corrected glasses for my cameras as long as I can get the dioptre adjusted properly with glasses on.
-
I guess the Df might be better to MF than the D500. She was designed for the purpose and
she is full frame ... larger hole = more light.
I very much hope someone will cut me a F6 ground glass to fit my D600.
-
The never-ending myth repeats "... larger hole = more light."
Frank, you keep forgetting the area covered (on Df) is much bigger, thus intensity of light remains the same.
The likely poor performance of these low-end cameras for manual focusing is not due to the DX format, but to the use of cheaper and darker finder construction (pentamirror instead of pentaprism).
-
The never-ending myth repeats "... larger hole = more light."
Frank, you keep forgetting the area covered (on Df) is much bigger, thus intensity of light remains the same.
The likely poor performance of these low-end cameras for manual focusing is not due to the DX format, but to the use of cheaper and darker finder construction (pentamirror instead of pentaprism).
Although the size is similar, I have noted that the difference between the D3200 and the D7100 is significant. I presume this is because of the pentaprism in the latter. I'm not sure it's all a matter of brightness or of acuity or what, but it's clearly present. I can stick the MF 85/2.8 on my wife's D7100 and get sharp pictures without working so hard.
-
The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes :D Images taken with the Noct on the Df are as sharp as I can get them and that means more to me than any metric relevant or not.
On the other hand, I cannot attain the same performance with my D3X, D3S, or D800 and even the D500, touted as being superb for manual focusing, isn't always focused with the accuracy I want.
FYI I am near-sighted ( around -4/-4.25) although less so over the years, and tend to use under-corrected glasses for my cameras as long as I can get the dioptre adjusted properly with glasses on.
But you put a K3 screen in your Df didn't you? To what do you attribute the Df's advantage in this respect? Is it a difference in the screen, or is more to do with differences in the whole viewfinder assembly?
-
I put a K3 split image screen in the Df for the purpose of focusing slower lenses than the Noct ... such as the 15/3.5. The k3 works with the Noct as well, but so did the stock screen.
Older models such as D2H and D2X (both DX) were also renown to be good for manual focusing.
-
I put a K3 split image screen in the Df for the purpose of focusing slower lenses than the Noct ... such as the 15/3.5. The k3 works with the Noct as well, but so did the stock screen.
Older models such as D2H and D2X (both DX) were also renown to be good for manual focusing.
Interesting, so it's the speed of the Noct that allows you to focus it accurately on the stock screen?
-
No, it is the graininess of the stock screen that breaks up the aerial image to allow accurate focusing. With the limited depth of field of a fast lens the ability of the screen to shatter the 3-D aerial image is critical.
-
No, it is the graininess of the stock screen that breaks up the aerial image to allow accurate focusing. With the limited depth of field of a fast lens the ability of the screen to shatter the 3-D aerial image is critical.
I see. SO a quick check reveals that while both the F100 & Df have a B type focusing screen, the F100 has a Mark II version while the Df has a Mark VIII version. So does the F100 version of the screen lack the graininess that the Df version has?
Is the problem with slow lenses the fact that the DoF is large enough that the image doesn't break up quickly the way a fast lens does? Or is it just that the image is too dark to judge?
-
Mostly the latter. Or, for some very short focal length lenses like the 14 & 15 mm kind, probably the combination.
The 15/5.6 QDC, first Nikkor in the 15 mm class, was notoriously difficult to focus even with the otherwise excellent coarse-grained F2 screens. Thus Nikon provided a special screen, type R, for it. It was excellent with the 15 mm and pretty much useless for anything else.
-
I have an R screen or maybe two in a drawer. I'm wondering why an R screen would not work well with any f/5.6 lens? As I understand the R screen it's like the A screen except the slop of the split image rangefinder is lower and the rangefinder base is narrower so it look through the smaller aperture of an f/5.6 rather than looking at the barrel of the lens.
I found an f/4.5 lens like the 80-200/4.5 a bit troublesome as I had to very carefully center my eye in the viewfinder or one side or the other would black out. I didn't use the R screen much except with my 15/5.6 AI.
Best,
Dave
-
I used a dedicated F2 body for the 15 mm f/5.6 at that time, so I could avoid swapping screens. Also tried the R camera with 400/5.6, but the centre half of the split image tended to black out so focusing had to be done on the off-centre part of the screen.
-
I used a dedicated F2 body for the 15 mm f/5.6 at that time, so I could avoid swapping screens. Also tried the R camera with 400/5.6, but the centre half of the split image tended to black out so focusing had to be done on the off-centre part of the screen.
I had (still have actually) the original 400/5.6 AI, and eagerly acquired an R screen for the F to go with it, and like others, was very disappointed. The plain ground glass was easier to use.
-
I've never tried the R screen with a 400/5.6 ED AI. Now I won't have to. :) I must have tried it with others, shorter but I don't remember. Maybe the R screen is useful for shorter lenses and f/4.5 lenses which give me trouble with an A or K screen. I got pretty settled on an E screen with most cameras from the F2 to the D2H.
Here is what Photography in Malaysia has to say...
Type R: Same as Type A but with rangefinder prisms of sloping surfaces at a smaller angle and horizontal and vertical lines to aid proper composition. Works best with lenses having maximum apertures from f 3.5 to f /5 6.
If I put a candle on top of my F2 or F3 can I call it a cupcake camera?
Dave
-
Sorry if someone has already mentioned.
I just realized that D3400 cannot auto-focus with the D type AF-S (like AF-S 300/4.0 or 17-35/2.8 ) or AF-I lenses, even though they are not the older screwdrive AF lenses, according to Nikon website.
-
It is good that D3400 still make wifi function at all usable. The wifi function of D750 is virtually abandoned...
I just noticed that D3400 DO NOT HAVE WIFI. It only has the Bluetooth for its wireless connection, and thus can offer the limited function of SnapBridge. :(
-
The D3400 is essentially the dumbed-down Nikon. What a pitiful evolution.
-
The D3400 is essentially the dumbed-down Nikon. What a pitiful evolution.
Indeed. Both D3400 and D5600 are disappointing new products.
-
I wonder which camera will be the first to offer a feature by which the picture is uploaded, then automatically deleted in camera?
I wonder which dSLR will offer a built in cell phone so people can drive down the road holding the camera to their head with one hand while steering with the other? :D :D :D
Dave
-
Indeed. Both D3400 and D5600 are disappointing new products.
Definitely. I see both cameras as a step backwards, particularly the D3400. The only good thing is that I got a D3300 body at a bargain price when the D3400 arrived in the shops, well below 300 €. Also a dumbed-down body, but not as dumb as the D3400.
Hermann
-
Yes, D3300 has at least the dust shaker. :o :o