Nikon D3400 - The Cupcake camera

[Akira]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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


AF-P 70-300


AF-S 55-300

[Hugh_3170]

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/

[Akira]

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.

[Fons Baerken]

Is the new 70-300 a dx lens?

[Roland Vink]

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?

[Akira]

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.

[Harald]

Hi,

no ultrasonic sensorcleaning. Snapbridge which does not work properly. Buy a 3300 or better the 5300.

Harald

[Matthew Currie]

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!

[dslater]

A pentamirror finder means it might not work well with a Noct, though

Why is this?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[dslater]

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?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Roland Vink]

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.

[Matthew Currie]

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....

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.