Nikon D3400 - The Cupcake camera

[richardHaw]

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? 
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.

[Matthew Currie]

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? 
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.

[richardHaw]

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.
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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[richardHaw]

Thus, the camera always "sees" the lens being positioned at its smallest aperture.

this is so smart 
I may probably just use a plastic wedge. (for resale purposes)

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[dslater]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes 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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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).

[Matthew Currie]

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. 

[dslater]

The proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes 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?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[dslater]

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?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.