IS Nikon D3300 BETTER than D3400 -If so WHY?
Aug 16, 2017 21:13:13 #
I'm a beginner crossing over from cellphone photography.
After reading here for weeks gleaning advice for which "first DSLR" to get I was leaning towards the Nikon D3400 for it's, relatively, fewer controls and WIFI connectivity BUT today, some members have stated that the D3300 was BETTER. True? If so, What made the older model "Better"?
Previously, another member commented: "that although wifi might be convenient for sharing pics, the flash card would be so much faster to transfer the photos". That being said, I now have all the more reason to reconsider the D3300 especially since its $50 cheaper.
Thanks.
After reading here for weeks gleaning advice for which "first DSLR" to get I was leaning towards the Nikon D3400 for it's, relatively, fewer controls and WIFI connectivity BUT today, some members have stated that the D3300 was BETTER. True? If so, What made the older model "Better"?
Previously, another member commented: "that although wifi might be convenient for sharing pics, the flash card would be so much faster to transfer the photos". That being said, I now have all the more reason to reconsider the D3300 especially since its $50 cheaper.
Thanks.
Aug 16, 2017 21:24:44 #
Classic mfr faux pas. Happens pretty often. Not enough new tricks left. Do your due diligence. Mfrs need new cash streams more often than good engineering allows . We pay for the bad R&D
Aug 16, 2017 21:34:23 #
If you're considering a Nikon camera, you should be familiar with Ken Rockwell. Here's his review of the D3400 (to address your question by a professional reviewer ...)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3400.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3400.htm
Aug 16, 2017 22:56:29 #
I have no experience of the D3400, and can only learn from reading about it what you can learn by doing the same. I have owned a D3300, for years, and had no problems with it, and have found it to be a great camera....for it's type. If money is a concern, consider getting a used / refurbished D3300. If you can afford a bit more money, try a used / refurbed Nikon D7200 which has more features / capabilities which the D3300 does not. Between the D3300, and D3400, I'd go with the D3300. It has an external mike jack, and sensor cleaning, which the D3400 does not. It costs less, too.
Aug 16, 2017 23:25:25 #
RE poor R&D faux pas..
Oh I hear you on that. It's the NEW corporate philosophy from toasters to cars and everything in between. Forget about quality. Forget about the customer. Just make a fast corporate buck; and we'll make MORE selling the replacement junk next year. Thanks.
Oh I hear you on that. It's the NEW corporate philosophy from toasters to cars and everything in between. Forget about quality. Forget about the customer. Just make a fast corporate buck; and we'll make MORE selling the replacement junk next year. Thanks.
Aug 16, 2017 23:29:19 #
erinjay64 wrote:
I have no experience of the D3400, and can only le... (show quote)
The external mike AND sensor cleaning ARE great reasons to get that one!
... And actually
because of a lack of money.. my other choices were either used D7000 or D7100.
Many Thanks!
Aug 16, 2017 23:31:31 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
If you're considering a Nikon camera, you should be familiar with Ken Rockwell. Here's his review of the D3400 (to address your question by a professional reviewer ...)
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3400.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3400.htm
WOW what a resource! thanks for pointing me to this.
Aug 17, 2017 03:11:09 #
It seems the D3300 is somewhat better suited for video recording purposes than the D3400. For some users, video recording is an important issue when selecting a camera.
Aug 17, 2017 06:01:54 #
Aug 17, 2017 06:07:37 #
glyphtrix wrote:
I'm a beginner crossing over from cellphone photog... (show quote)
Nikon often removes a feature from a camera line as they introduce the new model. I forget what was removed from the D3300, but it was something. Check some comparison sites and consider refurbished.
(Reviews) https://www.youtube.com/user/TheCameraStoreTV/videos
http://www.cameradecision.com/
http://cameras.reviewed.com/
http://camerasize.com/
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://snapsort.com/compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras?utm_campaign=internal-link&utm_source=mainmenu&utm_medium=text&ref=mainmenu
Aug 17, 2017 08:15:33 #
Jaackil
Loc: Massachusetts
I knew it wouldn't take long before people started recommending other cameras. I am surprised Canon Sony and Fuji have not come up yet but I am sure they will before we reach the end of the first page
If you are on a budget the Nikon 3xxx series are great cameras. If you are not on a budget the Nikon 3xxx series are still great cameras. I have not owned a 3300 or 3400. I did own a 3100 and was a great camera until I upgraded to a 7100. Entry level cameras which the 3300 and 3400 are are Not crappy versions of more expensive cameras. They will do most things a more expensive camera will do and their image quality is excellent. You will be happy with either one most likely for a long time. No one can tell you for sure which one is the better camera. You have to decide which one has the features you need. There is really 3 features that stand out between the two. The 3400 has wifi but does not have a sensor cleaner and has a less powerful onboard flash. Wifi, if you are used to taking pics with your cell phone and uploading to social media and want to continue to do that the wifi might be important to you but if you are planning on downloading your pictures to a computer most of the time wifi is slower you might not need it. I believe you can buy a wifi adapter for the 3300 for about $50. On board flashes in general are not great they produce harsh light and personally I very rarely use mine and when I do I turn the power down as low as I can get away with so that may not be a real issue. The sensor cleaner could be real important. Dust will get on your sensor when you change lenses The sensor cleaner vibrates the sensor to remove dust. While not perfect they do a good job and are pretty important. The 3400 does not have a sensor cleaner so at some point you are going to have to learn how to clean it yourself or have it professionally cleaned. If you are on a budget and the $50 difference means a lot go with your budget. You will not be disappointed. I will also say this. Now that you have ventured into the world of dslr's there will always be cameras that have features that you will want and you will constantly get the urge to upgrade that is the nature of the beast. I think most here would agree that it is wisest to go for a less expensive body and save for better lenses rather than an expensive body and not spend the money on glass. As you progress in your photography lenses will do more to help your photography improve than a body will. You are always better off saving the money on the body and spending your money on lenses. Best of luck!
If you are on a budget the Nikon 3xxx series are great cameras. If you are not on a budget the Nikon 3xxx series are still great cameras. I have not owned a 3300 or 3400. I did own a 3100 and was a great camera until I upgraded to a 7100. Entry level cameras which the 3300 and 3400 are are Not crappy versions of more expensive cameras. They will do most things a more expensive camera will do and their image quality is excellent. You will be happy with either one most likely for a long time. No one can tell you for sure which one is the better camera. You have to decide which one has the features you need. There is really 3 features that stand out between the two. The 3400 has wifi but does not have a sensor cleaner and has a less powerful onboard flash. Wifi, if you are used to taking pics with your cell phone and uploading to social media and want to continue to do that the wifi might be important to you but if you are planning on downloading your pictures to a computer most of the time wifi is slower you might not need it. I believe you can buy a wifi adapter for the 3300 for about $50. On board flashes in general are not great they produce harsh light and personally I very rarely use mine and when I do I turn the power down as low as I can get away with so that may not be a real issue. The sensor cleaner could be real important. Dust will get on your sensor when you change lenses The sensor cleaner vibrates the sensor to remove dust. While not perfect they do a good job and are pretty important. The 3400 does not have a sensor cleaner so at some point you are going to have to learn how to clean it yourself or have it professionally cleaned. If you are on a budget and the $50 difference means a lot go with your budget. You will not be disappointed. I will also say this. Now that you have ventured into the world of dslr's there will always be cameras that have features that you will want and you will constantly get the urge to upgrade that is the nature of the beast. I think most here would agree that it is wisest to go for a less expensive body and save for better lenses rather than an expensive body and not spend the money on glass. As you progress in your photography lenses will do more to help your photography improve than a body will. You are always better off saving the money on the body and spending your money on lenses. Best of luck!
Aug 17, 2017 08:30:08 #
I do not have experience with entry cameras but people seems to be very satisfied with them. Some models require lenses with AF-S because they do not have a motor to drive lenses without AF-S.
Just make sure you know that before you buy.
Just make sure you know that before you buy.
Aug 17, 2017 08:33:37 #
The two cameras are different, but not better. Read the specification on each and decide for yourself what you want. Reading all the comments on here will only confuse you.
Aug 17, 2017 08:56:09 #
Kuzano wrote:
Classic mfr faux pas. Happens pretty often. Not enough new tricks left. Do your due diligence. Mfrs need new cash streams more often than good engineering allows . We pay for the bad R&D
The general mode of most manufacturers seems to be to move in the direction of disposable hardware. That is, about the time the warranty runs out the hardware suffers a failure that is not economical to repair. So then its off to the internet to buy a new one. This is what keeps the revenue stream going. It doesn't pay to make a product that lasts forever, or is economical to repair and maintain.
Just my cynicism showing,
Aug 17, 2017 11:24:23 #
Jaackil wrote:
. The 3400 has wifi but does not have a sensor cleaner and has a less powerful onboard flash. Wifi, if you are used to taking pics with your cell phone and uploading to social media and want to continue to do that the wifi might be important to you but if you are planning on downloading your pictures to a computer most of the time wifi is slower you might not need it. I believe you can buy a wifi adapter for the 3300 for about $50.
Yes ... the WU-1a adapter gives you WiFi capabilities with the 3300. Mine came with the new camera kit along with the two kit lenses. I like my 3300 and like Canon, Sony and Fuji entry level cameras they work as advertised, but after acquiring a used 7100 ... I love the 7000.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.