D40 And D3500: My “Bookends”

(snip)
(I don't see the point of the D3400 existing... it's worse than the D3300 except for the presence of Bluetooth connectivity)
Fully agree about that one, typical cheap upgrade for the company, combined with little extra value to the customer!

I wonder how many Nikon sold?!
 
(snip)
(I don't see the point of the D3400 existing... it's worse than the D3300 except for the presence of Bluetooth connectivity)
Fully agree about that one, typical cheap upgrade for the company, combined with little extra value to the customer!
I wonder how many Nikon sold?!
Sadly I don't think it was down to the customer to choose... the D3300 was most likely retired the moment the D3400 was released, and then if you wanted to get an entry level Nikon DSLR, the D3400 was your only option.

Is is what it is, the sad part being that the target demographic of those cameras most likely didn't care or know the difference between those cameras and just went with it, thinking that the 3400 was better than the 3300 because of the "higher number"?

In a lot of ways the D3500 is very much of the same vein, but at the very leat it adopted a more modern interface that was also introduced in the D5500 and D5600 (and Z50, to an extend).

The newer AF-P kit lens bundled with the D3400 was indeed nicer though. At least if could use the full resolution of the sensor, unlike the AF-S 18-55G VR that was there before it and clearly showed its limits on the D3200.
 
(snip)
(I don't see the point of the D3400 existing... it's worse than the D3300 except for the presence of Bluetooth connectivity)
Fully agree about that one, typical cheap upgrade for the company, combined with little extra value to the customer!
I wonder how many Nikon sold?!
Sadly I don't think it was down to the customer to choose... the D3300 was most likely retired the moment the D3400 was released, and then if you wanted to get an entry level Nikon DSLR, the D3400 was your only option.
That was the day when Nikon was spitting out an updated camera to a product line every couple years. Seems like Nikon can't win no matter what they do. People complain when it goes 3-4 years between camera line updates, then complain with more frequent, but incremental updates.

--
Ryan
 
Last edited:
(snip)
(I don't see the point of the D3400 existing... it's worse than the D3300 except for the presence of Bluetooth connectivity)
Fully agree about that one, typical cheap upgrade for the company, combined with little extra value to the customer!
I wonder how many Nikon sold?!
Sadly I don't think it was down to the customer to choose... the D3300 was most likely retired the moment the D3400 was released, and then if you wanted to get an entry level Nikon DSLR, the D3400 was your only option.
That was the day when Nikon was spitting out an updated camera to a product line every couple years. Seems like Nikon can't win no matter what they do. People complain when it goes 3-4 years between camera line updates, then complain with more frequent, but incremental updates.
Yeah I mean there are ways to do incremental updates, the D3400 was overall worse than the D3300. The only obvious upgrade was the new kit lens it was bundled with.

Really reminds me of the D40X/D60 conundrum where both cameras were basically identical, but only the kit lens evolved.
 
(snip)
(I don't see the point of the D3400 existing... it's worse than the D3300 except for the presence of Bluetooth connectivity)
Fully agree about that one, typical cheap upgrade for the company, combined with little extra value to the customer!
I wonder how many Nikon sold?!
Sadly I don't think it was down to the customer to choose... the D3300 was most likely retired the moment the D3400 was released, and then if you wanted to get an entry level Nikon DSLR, the D3400 was your only option.
I bought my D3300 at a camera fair, directly from a Nikon guy but at a very friendly price (60-70% off) from an earlier sale around Christmas, which hadn't resulted in the expected sales. By now I've forgotten what was included, but it might have been the older AF-S 18-55. I bought my AF-P 18-55 VR later.
Is is what it is, the sad part being that the target demographic of those cameras most likely didn't care or know the difference between those cameras and just went with it, thinking that the 3400 was better than the 3300 because of the "higher number"?
It could well be so! Like the many Volvo Sports here in Gothenburg (home of everything Volvo, even the founders came from Gothenburg), which consisted of cars that hadn't been sold before the new model was launched, and so they got returned, upgraded with twin carburetors, springier suspension, five-shift gearboxes (and if you paid a lot extra, a limited-slip differential). You never saw them anywhere else, as they were always sold out!
In a lot of ways the D3500 is very much of the same vein, but at the very least it adopted a more modern interface that was also introduced in the D5500 and D5600 (and Z50, to an extend).
That is one bonus!
The newer AF-P kit lens bundled with the D3400 was indeed nicer though. At least if could use the full resolution of the sensor, unlike the AF-S 18-55G VR that was there before it and clearly showed its limits on the D3200.
I bought mine for a tuppence used to use with my D3300, in retrospect, a very good investment! And very nice with my Nikon 1 cameras!
 
(snip)
(I don't see the point of the D3400 existing... it's worse than the D3300 except for the presence of Bluetooth connectivity)
Fully agree about that one, typical cheap upgrade for the company, combined with little extra value to the customer!
I wonder how many Nikon sold?!
Sadly I don't think it was down to the customer to choose... the D3300 was most likely retired the moment the D3400 was released, and then if you wanted to get an entry level Nikon DSLR, the D3400 was your only option.
That was the day when Nikon was spitting out an updated camera to a product line every couple years. Seems like Nikon can't win no matter what they do. People complain when it goes 3-4 years between camera line updates, then complain with more frequent, but incremental updates.
It's like men complaining about their wives:

"Can't live with them, can't live without them.
 
Just a few comments on the conversation so far: I have a similar history to a couple of the people posting here. I got a D40 and kit 18-55 in 2007 and kept it till 2010, when I started looking for a pocketable camera. I went through several stages of compact to DSLR and back again, owning a D40x and two D5100s between 2012 and 2019. I eventually decided to see if my iPhone 13 Pro would do everything for me, camera-wise. It does a good job but I missed having a proper camera after 2 years and a review of my pictures from the D40 era prompted me to spend £45 on an absolutely mint D40 (the unfashionable silver finish, and only 800 shutter actuations!) from MPB in England, plus a 35mm f1.8 for a further £50. The D40 still produces pictures with that lovely CCD look. I was a bit concerned, though, that the 6mp D40 might not cut it in today’s multi-megapixel world so bought a D3300 with the 18-55AF-P (and only 900 shutter actuations) for not a huge sum from a lady who seemed to have inherited it. I had to update the firmware to make the AF-P lens function properly but it’s excellent now.
I’ve taken either the D40 or the D3300 out on several trips and have been very pleased with the results. The D3300 produces very high quality images but, as has been pointed out several times, the D40 is not far behind and the images do have that almost indefinable CCD quality. I also like that the D40 feels more solid than the D3300 and is a little bit easier to use, particularly with the three nice bright autofocus points in the viewfinder. I’ve returned to submitting occasional images to Shutterstock and use the D3300 for that but the D40 is used regularly, plus I’ve just found a 2005/6 18-55mm kit lens in the same unfashionable silver finish as the D40! I’m really comfortable in this inexpensive world of camera equipment and will probably get a 55-200mm VR zoom soon. I look at my pictures on my iPad or on a modest laptop screen so am never likely to need a Z9!
 
Looking at the photos you posted, I seem to find confirmation of something I noticed in my own experience with Nikon bodies.

I like pre-Expeed colors better. In particular, the greens. The greens on your D40 shots are "yellower" than those rendered by the D3500, and more "true to life".


I see the very same thing when I use my D2Xs or D40x.
 
I’ve been out for a walk this afternoon and had my D40 with me. Not many butterflies around in eastern England at the moment, so I was glad to see this red admiral on a bindweed flower. Nikon D40 and Nikon 35mm f1.8 lens.

ab4ffad67d8644a8b5c17bd2fea18de0.jpg
 
Last edited:
I’ve been out for a walk this afternoon and had my D40 with me. Not many butterflies around in eastern England at the moment, so I was glad to see this red admiral on a bindweed flower. Nikon D40 and Nikon 35mm f1.8 lens.

ab4ffad67d8644a8b5c17bd2fea18de0.jpg
After a long wet summer here in southern Sweden I haven't seen a single red admiral! Congratulations!

--
tordseriksson (at) gmail.....
Owner of a handful of Nikon cameras. And a few lenses. DxO PhotoLab user.
WSSA #456
 
I’ve been out for a walk this afternoon and had my D40 with me. Not many butterflies around in eastern England at the moment, so I was glad to see this red admiral on a bindweed flower. Nikon D40 and Nikon 35mm f1.8 lens.

ab4ffad67d8644a8b5c17bd2fea18de0.jpg
After a long wet summer here in southern Sweden I haven't seen a single red admiral! Congratulations!
This was my first this year. I also saw a comma butterfly today and several speckled wood butterflies so things are slowly improving!
 
Red, how did you ever manage to take a photo like that with such an old obsolete camera? 🙂😇
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top