Nikon's latest entry level DSLRs

[andy1868]

Hello there everyone,

Just a quick question to see if anybody had used any of the latest offerings by Nikon, namely the D3300/D3400 or the new D3500? And I'm especially interested in people's thoughts on their AF systems.

I suppose I should explain myself a little first, I have been shooting weddings in addition to my day job for about 5 years but for personal reasons I'm moving away from shooting professionally. Of course the beauty of shooting professionally was that I was using some really nice kit and could use it for my own stuff too, namely family and travel which it's always been great for. Now I'm not shooting professionally some of the kit is definitely going as I don't need 2 bodies etc but one thought was to chop it all in for one of the newer smaller cameras, smaller body, lighter lenses and a wad of cash in my pocket but at the same time I don't want to sell up and wish I hadn't; I don't HAVE to sell it all I could justify keeping a body and lens.

The last DX camera I owned was a D7000 which was always okay, and this was on my list of potential replacements too but couldn't help get drawn in by the smaller form of the entry level DSLRs and their higher MP count to boot. I also only owned the D7000 before my daughter or her cousins were born, which are all now toddlers and lightning quick but also my main subjects so I would need something that could keep up with them. Other things I shoot are just days out/holidays (hence the lure of smaller cameras), but also from time to time I take photographs for friends of their newborn babies/children etc as gifts which is something that would be handy to carry on doing as it's a nice thing to be a part of. This is one of the reasons I initially thought about keeping Nikon as all the flash controllers/guns etc are Nikon and wouldn't need swapping out. Another thought was to swap to mirrorless of some kind, but in order to get something quick enough to keep up I may be entering second hand D750 money territory at which point all I've saved is weight.

Current kit is 2x D750, 24-70 2.8, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Nikon 85mm 1.4D and 50mm 1.8D. If I was to keep hold of any of this kit it would be a D750 and the Sigma 35 as that tends to be my most used lens. I do also own the great little DX 35mm 1.8G that I would be looking at using if I sold all the above and went for a DX camera. I do also have a Canon EOS M with the 18-55 and 22mm lenses which are small and light but not really up to the job of keeping up with my daughter. It tends to be okay for days out in good light, but a family gathering indoors in winter is out of the window

TL;DR Are the Nikon entry level cameras quick enough to keep up with small children, including in poor light? I know the AF isn't going to be a D750 but is it adequate?

 

[f/1.2]

Hello there everyone,

Just a quick question to see if anybody had used any of the latest offerings by Nikon, namely the D3300/D3400 or the new D3500? And I'm especially interested in people's thoughts on their AF systems.

I suppose I should explain myself a little first, I have been shooting weddings in addition to my day job for about 5 years but for personal reasons I'm moving away from shooting professionally. Of course the beauty of shooting professionally was that I was using some really nice kit and could use it for my own stuff too, namely family and travel which it's always been great for. Now I'm not shooting professionally some of the kit is definitely going as I don't need 2 bodies etc but one thought was to chop it all in for one of the newer smaller cameras, smaller body, lighter lenses and a wad of cash in my pocket but at the same time I don't want to sell up and wish I hadn't; I don't HAVE to sell it all I could justify keeping a body and lens.

The last DX camera I owned was a D7000 which was always okay, and this was on my list of potential replacements too but couldn't help get drawn in by the smaller form of the entry level DSLRs and their higher MP count to boot. I also only owned the D7000 before my daughter or her cousins were born, which are all now toddlers and lightning quick but also my main subjects so I would need something that could keep up with them. Other things I shoot are just days out/holidays (hence the lure of smaller cameras), but also from time to time I take photographs for friends of their newborn babies/children etc as gifts which is something that would be handy to carry on doing as it's a nice thing to be a part of. This is one of the reasons I initially thought about keeping Nikon as all the flash controllers/guns etc are Nikon and wouldn't need swapping out. Another thought was to swap to mirrorless of some kind, but in order to get something quick enough to keep up I may be entering second hand D750 money territory at which point all I've saved is weight.

Current kit is 2x D750, 24-70 2.8, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Nikon 85mm 1.4D and 50mm 1.8D. If I was to keep hold of any of this kit it would be a D750 and the Sigma 35 as that tends to be my most used lens. I do also own the great little DX 35mm 1.8G that I would be looking at using if I sold all the above and went for a DX camera. I do also have a Canon EOS M with the 18-55 and 22mm lenses which are small and light but not really up to the job of keeping up with my daughter. It tends to be okay for days out in good light, but a family gathering indoors in winter is out of the window

TL;DR Are the Nikon entry level cameras quick enough to keep up with small children, including in poor light? I know the AF isn't going to be a D750 but is it adequate?

If you are going to go A.P.S.C shop it all in for a Sony A6400 if a.f is important it is simply outstanding and nothing Nikon have even in their higher end kit compares.

Nikon is a dead duck.

 

[andy1868]

I'll be honest, the A6400 had registered on my radar as a potential camera, however one of the other things I didn't explain very well was the saving of money IF I was to swap. The A6400 certainly gets some excellent reviews but there is also the premium of buying it and a lens to go with it which could potentially be in the £1300 region (if I was looking at say the 35mm 1.8 OSS) which was putting me off. Yes I would save weight but that combo would probably cost more than I can get for a D750 and 35mm Sigma. The cameras I was potentially looking at were in the £200-400 range and as I already have the 35mm there wouldn't be an outlay for that. I didn't know if I was expecting too much of the entry level cameras though, the "lowest" level Nikon I've owned is the D300 or D7000.

I think what I want is adequate performance at bargain price but quite frankly I don't know if I'm asking too much

 

[f/1.2]

I'll be honest, the A6400 had registered on my radar as a potential camera, however one of the other things I didn't explain very well was the saving of money IF I was to swap. The A6400 certainly gets some excellent reviews but there is also the premium of buying it and a lens to go with it which could potentially be in the £1300 region (if I was looking at say the 35mm 1.8 OSS) which was putting me off. Yes I would save weight but that combo would probably cost more than I can get for a D750 and 35mm Sigma. The cameras I was potentially looking at were in the £200-400 range and as I already have the 35mm there wouldn't be an outlay for that. I didn't know if I was expecting too much of the entry level cameras though, the "lowest" level Nikon I've owned is the D300 or D7000.

I think what I want is adequate performance at bargain price but quite frankly I don't know if I'm asking too much

You can buy an A6400 for under £700 grey market and a 35mm f/1.8 0.S.S are around £200 odd used.

 

[keeweeman]

You can buy an A6400 for under £700 grey market and a 35mm f/1.8 0.S.S are around £200 odd used.

which is still more than double what he is hoping to spend

 

[f/1.2]

which is still more than double what he is hoping to spend

And....

It is still £400 less than he though it was.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I think what I want is adequate performance at bargain price but quite frankly I don't know if I'm asking too much

I've tried going down that road and it was a dead end!

The entry level Nikons are OK, but if you are used to a D750 you might hate their small size and lack of controls. Cheaper mirrorless cameras are the same - frustrating.

If I was to keep hold of any of this kit it would be a D750 and the Sigma 35 as that tends to be my most used lens.

This is your answer IMO.

 

[keeweeman]

And....

It is still £400 less than he though it was.

Maybe so but if he sets a budget then any advice should at least attempt to stay in the realms of it.
I agree with @Ed Sutton personally, if you are used to the d750 when it comes to autofocus, quality and iso performance etc then i don't think the smaller form factor of the budget range will be enough of a benefit for you to not regret the change. The other option is to follow the advice from f2.8, go down a slightly better performance route but not put as much money back in your pocket once the existing kit is sold but i can't really recommend what you should go for in that instance since other than very briefly messing with their high end kit at the photography show i haven't used the sony stuff

 

[andy1868]

which is still more than double what he is hoping to spend

And....

It is still £400 less than he though it was.

All comments are certainly welcome, in my mind I was looking at sticking with Nikon but a lot of that was down to convenience. The money is potentially there, some of the money is already spoken for so wouldn’t have all the money made from selling current kit.

I've tried going down that road and it was a dead end!

The entry level Nikons are OK, but if you are used to a D750 you might hate their small size and lack of controls. Cheaper mirrorless cameras are the same - frustrating.


This is your answer IMO.

Glad somebody else has tried I have actually just nipped into Currys as I was calling next door anyway. They had a D3500 which was better built than I was expecting, the grip was certainly deeper than I thought. It seemed of a better quality than the previous entry level cameras i’d ever played with. Annoyingly it had no battery in it to actually try! One thing that became apparent is I’ve become accustomed to a full frame viewfinder too

Maybe so but if he sets a budget then any advice should at least attempt to stay in the realms of it.
I agree with @Ed Sutton


personally, if you are used to the d750 when it comes to autofocus, quality and iso performance etc then i don't think the smaller form factor of the budget range will be enough of a benefit for you to not regret the change. The other option is to follow the advice from f2.8, go down a slightly better performance route but not put as much money back in your pocket once the existing kit is sold but i can't really recommend what you should go for in that instance since other than very briefly messing with their high end kit at the photography show i haven't used the sony stuff

Yes I’m thinking that’s also a possibility, keep the 750 as I know it works for me, or sell it and use the direct proceeds to get something of good quality in a smaller package.

If anybody else has any thoughts I’m certainly open to all suggestions, this is the first time in years I’ve not NEEDED kit for paid work and there’s been loads of interesting cameras in that time

 

[suter1972]

Im afraid I cant help with any comparisons as im just a beginner but I can say that ive got a D3500 and I love it. Its got more features than I actually understand what to do with, and its good enough that my 8yr old can go off into the garden and within 5 minutes of picking it up for the first time can shoot shots like this (just messing about)

IMG_8719 by andrew suter, on Flickr

 

[andy1868]

Im afraid I cant help with any comparisons as im just a beginner but I can say that ive got a D3500 and I love it. Its got more features than I actually understand what to do with, and its good enough that my 8yr old can go off into the garden and within 5 minutes of picking it up for the first time can shoot shots like this (just messing about)

IMG_8719 by andrew suter, on Flickr

To be honest I was pleasantly surprised with it, it’s certainly a light camera I’m a little annoyed there was no battery in it to have a try of it. It was the autofocus performance that I was mostly interested in hearing about. I’m happy to take a hit in low light performance etc, it was autofocus that would probably annoy me if it couldn’t keep up with my daughter Shes of the age that she doesn’t want to stand still for photographs so you need to be quick!

 

[Erty]

D3400 was my first camera. Lots of auto settings which are very good, no bracketing (meh) and manual iso settings are only in full stops (stupid nikon marketing strategy). With the af-p kit lens it is really fast focussing. AF is good but not brilliant in low light (equal or better than a 5DmkIII on the central cross). Limited focus points but they cover a similar area to a D750. For a small, light camera it is really handy with the kit lens.

D750 is better at everything but weighs a ton by comparison.

D3500 lacks the function button that the 3400 has. You may find this annoying as you can set it up for iso adjustment.

D7200 is very close to a 750 in terms of layout and focus performance but with a dx sensor. Not quite as heavy but you can make big weight savings on the lenses. Price is down to a bit more than a 3500 and it can drive most lenses. Might be worth considering. It feels similar to a D750.

Try the dx35mm lens on the 750. It works pretty well on 1.2 crop. If you stuck with a D750 plus this lens and your 50mm you'd gat the best low light performance.

 

[dcash29]

When you've finished messing about with the entry level kit, what do you really achieve when you fit good glass? A small unbalanced camera that you're unhappy with.

 

[Deleted member 49428]

I find the A6000 far more intuitive and easier to use than the D3200

 

[andy1868]

D3400 was my first camera. Lots of auto settings which are very good, no bracketing (meh) and manual iso settings are only in full stops (stupid nikon marketing strategy). With the af-p kit lens it is really fast focussing. AF is good but not brilliant in low light (equal or better than a 5DmkIII on the central cross). Limited focus points but they cover a similar area to a D750. For a small, light camera it is really handy with the kit lens.

D750 is better at everything but weighs a ton by comparison.

D3500 lacks the function button that the 3400 has. You may find this annoying as you can set it up for iso adjustment.

D7200 is very close to a 750 in terms of layout and focus performance but with a dx sensor. Not quite as heavy but you can make big weight savings on the lenses. Price is down to a bit more than a 3500 and it can drive most lenses. Might be worth considering. It feels similar to a D750.

Try the dx35mm lens on the 750. It works pretty well on 1.2 crop. If you stuck with a D750 plus this lens and your 50mm you'd gat the best low light performance.

Thanks for the insight, it’s good to hear some first hand thoughts. The reviews don’t really go into much detail around AF and just mention it being snappy. But is that snappy as in good or snappy for an entry level camera?

I have had a little play with the 35 on the D750 in the full crop mode, maybe I’ll try the 1.2 mode too. It’s a great little lens that I could never bring myself to sell for the money they go for. I like to use the 50mm when travelling light, so I suppose the 35 could be a nice little travel lens too; obviously with the caveat that it’s not the entire sensor but it’s pretty close

A good shout about the D7200 too, I did have the D7000 in the past and knew they were an improved version. I suppose the 7200 would be a good way to have the extra money and save weight on the lenses. The Sigma is excellent but it’s heavy, hence why I use the 50 on walks out etc.

I’ve also been looking more into the A6400 as mentioned above, it certainly seems to be a very capable camera, I guess I need to spend some time looking at which lenses would be a possibility and weigh up from there

I’m not really a massive gear head, and I’m not really one to have to have the latest and greatest, I just like to use stuff that works and gets me the photographs I want

 

[ancient_mariner]

Interesting how the thread is shaping up. A few years back I looked at entry level cameras ncluding the D3200 - the sensor was one of the best at the time, but the handling was cramped and the viewfinder small, dim and muddy, especially with a kit zoom. My expectation is that things aren't very different now, and moving to such a camera from a D750 would be a source of almost endless regret.

In your position I'd probably keep the 35 f1.4 and the 85 f1.8, maybe look for a 24-120 f4 (down to around £250-£300ish used now) as a general purpose lens for holidays and walkabouts. FWIW I've just sold my D610 kit to move to Sony with an A7III + a couple of lenses - if AF performance and people are your thing then Sony kit is the way to go as suggested above, but you won't have so much money left. Personally I'd find it really hard to go back to crop after FX.

 

[andy1868]

Interesting how the thread is shaping up. A few years back I looked at entry level cameras ncluding the D3200 - the sensor was one of the best at the time, but the handling was cramped and the viewfinder small, dim and muddy, especially with a kit zoom. My expectation is that things aren't very different now, and moving to such a camera from a D750 would be a source of almost endless regret.

In your position I'd probably keep the 35 f1.4 and the 85 f1.8, maybe look for a 24-120 f4 (down to around £250-£300ish used now) as a general purpose lens for holidays and walkabouts. FWIW I've just sold my D610 kit to move to Sony with an A7III + a couple of lenses - if AF performance and people are your thing then Sony kit is the way to go as suggested above, but you won't have so much money left. Personally I'd find it really hard to go back to crop after FX.

Definitely some good thoughts there, and probably what I’ve been thinking since reading some of he other comments in here. To be honest I don’t think I need a host of lenses, the Sigma 35 is on my camera 95% of the time I’m not shooting professionally and it’s just a focal length I love. I’ve travelled with it and found it really versatile for that too. I’d probably keep the 50mm 1.8D as it’s a nice little lens and worth more than the £60 I would get for it.

The 85 1.4D is superb too, but doesn’t get used outside my paid work now so probably wouldn’t make sense to keep it. I could do with selling some of the gear as the money is going to be used elsewhere, if there was no plans for it then I would probably just keep hold

 

[ancient_mariner]

The 85 1.4D is superb too, but doesn’t get used outside my paid work now so probably wouldn’t make sense to keep it.

Ah, sorry - mistook that for a 1.8 - probably flog it in that case as a large & heavy lens that will bring in lots of cash. The 50 1.8D is OK - used one quite a bit - but it never found a place in my heart like the old Sony 50 f1.4 of some of the manual Nikon primes. I've just started using 35mm of the A7 and like that focal length quite a lot.

 

[andy1868]

Ah, sorry - mistook that for a 1.8 - probably flog it in that case as a large & heavy lens that will bring in lots of cash. The 50 1.8D is OK - used one quite a bit - but it never found a place in my heart like the old Sony 50 f1.4 of some of the manual Nikon primes. I've just started using 35mm of the A7 and like that focal length quite a lot.

I agree, the 50mm is an OK lens, it needs stopping down abit to get the best but certainly not terrible. I agree about the Sony 50mm, I used to use that on my old A200 back in the day, a sweet lens indeed!

 

[scott199]

I’m surprised the D500 hasn’t been mentioned, superb AF performances, AF range similar to the top end D5, good low light, albeit slightly higher than your budget but I’ve seen them go for around 650/700 used and you can utilise your existing glass.

I have a D500, no idea about the others but generally all reviews pretty much put it top of the scale in AF performance side of things.

But maybe more than you wanted to spend ?

 

[ancient_mariner]

D500 is also a behemoth at 860g (110g more than a D750 that the OP wants to reduce in size). Great camera, but probably not the tool for the job here and not a better tool than a D750.

 

[andy1868]

I’m surprised the D500 hasn’t been mentioned, superb AF performances, AF range similar to the top end D5, good low light, albeit slightly higher than your budget but I’ve seen them go for around 650/700 used and you can utilise your existing glass.

I have a D500, no idea about the others but generally all reviews pretty much put it top of the scale in AF performance side of things.

But maybe more than you wanted to spend ?

The D500 would probably be just a similar camera to what I already have, just in DX. Similar weight, size and money. I suppose it would free up the Sigma though and just use the DX 35 I have to end up with more money and less weight at the end.

I suppose my initial thoughts were more along the lines of getting a smaller entry level camera to save money and weight all in one but I’m not sure if that would be suitable. The D750 is suitable in AF and IQ terms, that paired with the Sigma is really nice!

 

[scott199]

The D500 would probably be just a similar camera to what I already have, just in DX. Similar weight, size and money. I suppose it would free up the Sigma though and just use the DX 35 I have to end up with more money and less weight at the end.

I suppose my initial thoughts were more along the lines of getting a smaller entry level camera to save money and weight all in one but I’m not sure if that would be suitable. The D750 is suitable in AF and IQ terms, that paired with the Sigma is really nice!

Yeah that’s understandable, I suppose I’m different than most as I don’t find the D500 heavy, happily carry it all day with 70-200 but that’s the thing everyone is different.

 

[andy1868]

Yeah that’s understandable, I suppose I’m different than most as I don’t find the D500 heavy, happily carry it all day with 70-200 but that’s the thing everyone is different.

I completely agree, there was a time I would carry alsorts, I once took 6-7kgs of camera gear on a city break For years shooting weddings I would happily carry a D3 fitted with a 24-70/35 1.4 and maybe a flashgun on one shoulder and a D700 along with the 85mm and maybe a flashgun on the other shoulder for up to 12 hours a day; a single D750 with one lens is a featherweight bu comparison

My needs in a camera have changed a little though since my daughter was born, being able to run and play with her while still having a camera for some shots is nice so weight saving does help in that sense. It’s not that I can’t or refuse to carry it, it would just be nice if it weighed less if I could keep some of the performance. The toss up is somewhere in the middle ground that’s light enough but decent enough to keep up, which may be the D750 for me.

Thanks for all the comments though everyone, putting my thoughts down in words and having some good points to think about has really cleared my mind and certainly for the time being I think I’ll be sticking with a D750 and the Sigma and the little 50mm

 

[Erty]

I had a play with the D3400 in low domestic lighting. It still worked fine. The lens makes the response time really quick. When I tried on a unfocussable blank surface it went through the full range of motion in half a second.

 

[Ste_S]

It was the autofocus performance that I was mostly interested in hearing about. I’m happy to take a hit in low light performance etc, it was autofocus that would probably annoy me if it couldn’t keep up with my daughter Shes of the age that she doesn’t want to stand still for photographs so you need to be quick!

Shot with a D5200 with the 35mm f1.8 DX at a Bowling Alley on Sunday and AF performance in there was terrible. Not a camera I'd buy If I needed to rely on low light AF performance.
That was with the regular af - the live view contrast detect af is far, far worse.