Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Consumer ElectronicsCameras · 6 months ago

Is choosing Nikon D3400 camera over the D3500 worth it?

Is is worth it to get the Nikon D3400 rather than the newer model, the D3500? I know there isn't much of a difference according to my research, but I want a second opinion.

4 Answers

Relevance
  • 6 months ago

    I've got both of these cameras and tbh I prefer the 3400. Yes the 35 is lighter but I prefer the weight as it feels cheap. Other changes are the button layout and improved battery life (still can't complain with over a 1000 shots from 34) but the 34 has a dedicated ISO button on the side, they took this away on 35 and hid it in the menu, which royally pi**ed me off tbh.

    Anyway, both good entry level cameras as everything else is pretty much the same.

    And to speak about franks answer about batteries is bull. I use third party batteries in all my Nikons - 3400/3500/7200/7500 - and all them work. They don't last as long but they still work - ie Nikon official last 1000 shots, third party will last around 700.

  • 6 months ago

    The D3500 has a much better battery life. I have seen a d3500 and it is noticeably smaller and weighs 45g less(according to reviews) but it also has edit movie and side by side comparison features. So for me its the D3500 just because its lighter, but also a bit because its newer and has the better battery duration. Check out the back view as some of the buttons are moved all to the right of the screen and not down the left side. There may be pros and cons to both choices there.

  • Frank
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    I don't think so. Disclaimer: I'm not a fan of the D3xxx series by Nikon because Nikon has removed the AF motor from these cameras while charging you full price. Not having an AF motor in the body means that you will not be able to have AF in many lenses that you may (or may not) need now or in the near future.

    Here's a link to dpreview showing a side-by-side comparison: https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-...

    A far better camera would be the Pentax K-70. In almost every measurement, the Pentax K-70 is superior to anything in the D3xxx or even the D5xxx series from Nikon. Pentax bodies have in-body image stabilization (IBIS) which means any lens you use, even a $50 lens from the 70s, will be stabilized by almost 5 stops. That's the difference between shooting at ISO 100 and ISO 3,200. That alone will allow you to get low-light, hand-held images that are vastly superior to any other system that doesn't have IBIS. Say you want to shoot indoors, so you get the nifty fifty - a 50mm f/1.8 lens for about $130. Probably the best value lens in existence. Nobody makes a stabilized 50mm lens. But if you shoot Pentax, you won't care because your camera body has IBIS.

    Nikon's D3xxx series only shoots 12-bit RAW files. All of the other brands such as Canon and Pentax shoot 14-bit RAW files. What's the big deal about 2 measly bits? Well, each bit doubles the number of tones from pure black to pure white. Twelve-bit files have 4,096 tones or 1/4 the tonality of 14-bit files which have 16,384. This means that when processing your RAW files, you will have an enormous capability to open up shadows and bring down highlight value in order to retain detail. This will provide you with a huge advantage over anyone shooting with a camera that can only do 12-bit files. This is not a hardware issue - it's simply a software issue. Nikon could very easily have the D3xxx series shoot 14-bit files, but it chooses not to by simply turning that capability off in the camera's firmware. It's a sneaky way to encourage people to upgrade to the D5xxx series.

    And speaking of being sneaky, Nikon puts software in their cameras to detect if you're using a Nikon-brand battery. If you use any other non-Nikon branded battery, the camera will simply not turn on. I think that's just unethical and why, in part, why I wouldn't buy Nikon. There are simply too many better options (politics aside) that are on the market.

    Pentax bodies are also fully weather and dust proof. They've got faster shutter speeds and faster frame rates.

    The Pentax K-70 has at least one stop better ISO performance over the D3400 as can be seen here: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?...

    You don't mention anything about what you want to do with the camera. From that info, one can deduce what features will likely be important to you. There really aren't any "bad" DSLRs, just ones that will either be best for your specific needs which is based upon what you want to photograph.

    Instead of the Nikon D3xxx series (which you end up paying more for the N-I-K-O-N printed on the camera), look at the T series from Canon or the 70D, 77D, or 80D from Canon. Any of these cameras will be superior to the D3400 or D3500. Pentax's bodies are even better except when it comes to video which they're not so good at, but then again, Nikon's bodies are absolute rubbish for video, too.

    Sony and Fujifilm's mirrorless cameras are very good, and many like the A6500 are better than the Nikon D3xxx in many ways. It's just a matter of whether or not those superiorities are what you need for what you shoot.

  • keerok
    Lv 7
    6 months ago

    You already know they're almost the same technically so I'm guessing price is an issue. If you can afford the newer D3500 then you wouldn't be asking but since you did, I'm pretty sure you will be satisfied with the older D3400. You won't miss a thing. Basically, all dSLRs are the same. You'll get the same picture no matter what you use.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.