D3400 and poor man's unholy trinity

[doonie]

I just got back from a very short trip to Yosemite with my adult children. We stayed in Mammoth Lakes so got a chance to do a nice hike at Devil's Postpile National Monument and we also did an 8 mile out and back to Cathedral Lakes in the park. I can say one thing, hiking at 10,000 feet kicked my butt !

A couple disclaimers: landscapes are not my primary photographic interest and I was traveling with 3 people, none of whom are early risers. So this was never going to be a "photo" trip. But I still wanted to bring something light enough to not be a burden and also cover me if I got lucky enough to come across something interesting. So pretty boring light for the most part, but still a beautiful experience.

I brought the D3400, the 10-20 AF-P, the 18-55 AF-P , and the 70-300 AF-P DX VR.

Any comments, thoughts, critiques, etc are certainly welcome.

A few from Devil's Postpile



















The Minarets at sundown from the top of Mammoth Mountain




My son photographing my daughter and her fiancee













And some random shots inside the park

 

[PeterJohan]

Great pictures Doonie, and what a wonderful parc it is! the last shot, with the water on the foreground is my favourit! Thanks for sharing! Peter

 

[doonie]

Great pictures Doonie, and what a wonderful parc it is! the last shot, with the water on the foreground is my favourit! Thanks for sharing! Peter

Thanks Peter. I most definitely need to go back there alone:-D

 

[Sactojim]

Well done! I have the D3400 and a D7200 and the light weight/small form of the 3400 is my favorite for hiking, backpacking, and kayaking. THe kit 18-55 and 70-300 DX-P lenses are excellent performers with fast focus, silent, lightweight, and sharp. Glad the smoke was not a issue.

 

[doonie]

Well done! I have the D3400 and a D7200 and the light weight/small form of the 3400 is my favorite for hiking, backpacking, and kayaking. THe kit 18-55 and 70-300 DX-P lenses are excellent performers with fast focus, silent, lightweight, and sharp. Glad the smoke was not a issue.

Thanks very much. It was a little hazy in the valley as you can see in the last photo but all in all not too bad.

The D3400 is a terrific travel body, almost weightless. The only problem I have with it, and it's a big one, is I have a very hard time seeing the little red dot focus indicator. It's extremely frustrating and would definitely prevent me from using this body for anything that required fast shooting. I'm sure it's my bad eyes, but I don't have this problem with my D500 or D750.

And as far as the lenses go, they are everything you say, but I feel the images are sharp in the way a point and shoot image can be sharp. There's a crispness to them that in my mind lacks depth or character. Does that make any sense to anyone ?

 

[bjn70]

I think that gear is all good choices for travel. I have a D750 and that plus my 3 travel lenses add up to nearly 8 pounds which I carried for 5 days through Maine.

 

[doonie]

I think that gear is all good choices for travel. I have a D750 and that plus my 3 travel lenses add up to nearly 8 pounds which I carried for 5 days through Maine.

Well, weight is all relative, right ? I'm 62 yrs old and in okay, not great shape. An 8 mile hike, 4 miles of which climbs 800' of elevation at over 10,000 ft altitude was quite enough for me. I was glad to have that really light setup.

 

[Bobthearch]

I think that gear is all good choices for travel. I have a D750 and that plus my 3 travel lenses add up to nearly 8 pounds which I carried for 5 days through Maine.

Well, weight is all relative, right ? I'm 62 yrs old and in okay, not great shape. An 8 mile hike, 4 miles of which climbs 800' of elevation at over 10,000 ft altitude was quite enough for me. I was glad to have that really light setup.

The highest elevation in all of Maine is only 5,000'. So no comparison.

At an elevation of 10,000' it takes a week or more to acclimate to the lower oxygen levels. Many people just can't acclimate, especially those who aren't athletic or those who have health conditions.

I live at almost 7,000' and sure feel it every time I come home after a week away.

Besides, the D3400 takes great photos and those are all very good lenses.

 

[embie]

Hi,

That's exactly the quality in landscapes pictures I'm looking for.

Great colors, sharpness, contrasts... IMO all perfect.

Thanks for sharing them,

eMBie

 

[doonie]

I think that gear is all good choices for travel. I have a D750 and that plus my 3 travel lenses add up to nearly 8 pounds which I carried for 5 days through Maine.

Well, weight is all relative, right ? I'm 62 yrs old and in okay, not great shape. An 8 mile hike, 4 miles of which climbs 800' of elevation at over 10,000 ft altitude was quite enough for me. I was glad to have that really light setup.

The highest elevation in all of Maine is only 5,000'. So no comparison.

At an elevation of 10,000' it takes a week or more to acclimate to the lower oxygen levels. Many people just can't acclimate, especially those who aren't athletic or those who have health conditions.

I live at almost 7,000' and sure feel it every time I come home after a week away.

Besides, the D3400 takes great photos and those are all very good lenses.

I had no idea what to expect. I've climbed a couple of the high peaks in the Adirondacks which I feel were much tougher trails, but nothing prepared me for the shortness of breath.

Appreciate the input !

 

[doonie]

Hi,

That's exactly the quality in landscapes pictures I'm looking for.

Great colors, sharpness, contrasts... IMO all perfect.

Thanks for sharing them,

eMBie

 

[Bobthearch]

I think that gear is all good choices for travel. I have a D750 and that plus my 3 travel lenses add up to nearly 8 pounds which I carried for 5 days through Maine.

Well, weight is all relative, right ? I'm 62 yrs old and in okay, not great shape. An 8 mile hike, 4 miles of which climbs 800' of elevation at over 10,000 ft altitude was quite enough for me. I was glad to have that really light setup.

The highest elevation in all of Maine is only 5,000'. So no comparison.

At an elevation of 10,000' it takes a week or more to acclimate to the lower oxygen levels. Many people just can't acclimate, especially those who aren't athletic or those who have health conditions.

I live at almost 7,000' and sure feel it every time I come home after a week away.

Besides, the D3400 takes great photos and those are all very good lenses.

I had no idea what to expect. I've climbed a couple of the high peaks in the Adirondacks which I feel were much tougher trails, but nothing prepared me for the shortness of breath.

Appreciate the input !

If I'm walking and staying active, I can acclimate to 7,000' completely in a week. But if I just sit around it takes longer.

And even then, going from 7,000' to 10,000' feels like starting from sea level again.

And at elevations of 12,000 and higher, wheh!

 

[embie]

Off topic, once

Love to travel but first I always check the altitudes of the places on Google Earth (cities, landmarks, rims, passes, trails...) I'm going to visit.

As long they are below 9.000 feet I can manage slooooowly, higher...no way, so, no visit to many South-American (Andes) countries :-( because they have a lot of places around 12.000+.

--
"Travel is fatal...to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness" (Mark Twain) - "The world...is our home" (eMBie)

 

[NCB]

Well done! I have the D3400 and a D7200 and the light weight/small form of the 3400 is my favorite for hiking, backpacking, and kayaking. THe kit 18-55 and 70-300 DX-P lenses are excellent performers with fast focus, silent, lightweight, and sharp. Glad the smoke was not a issue.

Thanks very much. It was a little hazy in the valley as you can see in the last photo but all in all not too bad.

The D3400 is a terrific travel body, almost weightless. The only problem I have with it, and it's a big one, is I have a very hard time seeing the little red dot focus indicator. It's extremely frustrating and would definitely prevent me from using this body for anything that required fast shooting. I'm sure it's my bad eyes, but I don't have this problem with my D500 or D750.

And as far as the lenses go, they are everything you say, but I feel the images are sharp in the way a point and shoot image can be sharp. There's a crispness to them that in my mind lacks depth or character. Does that make any sense to anyone ?

Yep, I was wondering about the sharpness, don't know what the actual cause is. But with both my Df and D3100 I dial the in-camera sharpness down low, as I prefer to sharpen in post (Photoshop Elements); that way I can fiddle around with it to get what looks right.

I find trees are sensitive to sharpening and one can overdo it. Both my cameras have an anti-aliasing filter on the sensor, which means the pixel level image isn't as sharp, but maybe it's smoother.

Whatever, a good crop of pics. My one and only visit was in 1981; I found out afterwards I must have stuck my thumb on the lens when I got to Yosemite, so my keenly anticipated snaps all had a blurry centre :-(

 

[NCB]

On my one and only visit to Yosemite, I left Death Valley in the morning and arrived at the top of the Tioga Pass in the afternoon. In the last hour or so of the drive I could feel a strange gurgling in my legs. Got out at the pass and could hardly move. I hadn't thought of what a 10,000 ft climb in a few hours could do!

Great trip, though, wonderful place.

 

[doonie]

And as far as the lenses go, they are everything you say, but I feel the images are sharp in the way a point and shoot image can be sharp. There's a crispness to them that in my mind lacks depth or character. Does that make any sense to anyone ?

Yep, I was wondering about the sharpness, don't know what the actual cause is. But with both my Df and D3100 I dial the in-camera sharpness down low, as I prefer to sharpen in post (Photoshop Elements); that way I can fiddle around with it to get what looks right.

I find trees are sensitive to sharpening and one can overdo it. Both my cameras have an anti-aliasing filter on the sensor, which means the pixel level image isn't as sharp, but maybe it's smoother.

Whatever, a good crop of pics. My one and only visit was in 1981; I found out afterwards I must have stuck my thumb on the lens when I got to Yosemite, so my keenly anticipated snaps all had a blurry centre :-(

my keenly anticipated pics suffered from boring, flat light. The brewery in Mammoth Lakes and the 3 thirty-somethings i was traveling with were not conducive to early morning rising maybe next time.

And to be accurate, and just so I don't get called out, the actual elevation is 9,288 ft.

 

[bjn70]

Well, weight is all relative, right ? I'm 62 yrs old and in okay, not great shape. An 8 mile hike, 4 miles of which climbs 800' of elevation at over 10,000 ft altitude was quite enough for me. I was glad to have that really light setup.

I had a D7200 and some lighter lenses. When I went to D750 I was aware of more weight, mostly in the fat pig Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and especially the Sigma 100-400. I'm still conflicted about getting DX as a second camera and getting the nice and light Nikon 70-300 AF-P to go with it. We weren't doing any significant climbing in Maine except for a short hike up to a fire lookout tower in Acadia.

I'm older than 62 and used to be a lot more athletic. Last year went to Yellowstone and had trouble with steep hikes above 8,000 ft, even carrying only a D7200 and one lens. At lower altitudes I have no problems. In the past I've carried heavy backpacks over 12,000 ft with no problem, so yes weight is relative. (Also age is relative.)

If I had my way I'd probably own about 4 bodies, for different uses, and a few more lenses. That sounds like a pretty crazy thing to do so I have to think about it a little more. And it gets even crazier when you think about the future because that means 4 things to worry about upgrading instead of just one!

 

[doonie]

Well, weight is all relative, right ? I'm 62 yrs old and in okay, not great shape. An 8 mile hike, 4 miles of which climbs 800' of elevation at over 10,000 ft altitude was quite enough for me. I was glad to have that really light setup.

I had a D7200 and some lighter lenses. When I went to D750 I was aware of more weight, mostly in the fat pig Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and especially the Sigma 100-400. I'm still conflicted about getting DX as a second camera and getting the nice and light Nikon 70-300 AF-P to go with it. We weren't doing any significant climbing in Maine except for a short hike up to a fire lookout tower in Acadia.

I'm older than 62 and used to be a lot more athletic. Last year went to Yellowstone and had trouble with steep hikes above 8,000 ft, even carrying only a D7200 and one lens. At lower altitudes I have no problems. In the past I've carried heavy backpacks over 12,000 ft with no problem, so yes weight is relative. (Also age is relative.)

If I had my way I'd probably own about 4 bodies, for different uses, and a few more lenses. That sounds like a pretty crazy thing to do so I have to think about it a little more. And it gets even crazier when you think about the future because that means 4 things to worry about upgrading instead of just one!

I don't think different bodies for different purposes is crazy at all. Same with lenses. I have plenty of overlap with the longer lenses I own but I use them all at different times and circumstances. I sold off some older lenses that I wasn't using anymore and purchased the D3400 and those 3 lenses specifically for this trip. All 4 items cost me around $800 minus what I got from the sales. I fully expected to sell the whole package when I got back but now I think I'll hold on to it all along with my other gear. I don't really ever think about upgrading anymore. Not really sure what more I can expect that my D500 and D750 won't satisfy FOR MY PURPOSES. If something breaks, that's different. But upgrading just to upgrade doesn't interest me. Much rather go on a trip

 

[NCB]

Well, weight is all relative, right ? I'm 62 yrs old and in okay, not great shape. An 8 mile hike, 4 miles of which climbs 800' of elevation at over 10,000 ft altitude was quite enough for me. I was glad to have that really light setup.

I had a D7200 and some lighter lenses. When I went to D750 I was aware of more weight, mostly in the fat pig Tamron 24-70 f2.8 and especially the Sigma 100-400. I'm still conflicted about getting DX as a second camera and getting the nice and light Nikon 70-300 AF-P to go with it. We weren't doing any significant climbing in Maine except for a short hike up to a fire lookout tower in Acadia.

I'm older than 62 and used to be a lot more athletic. Last year went to Yellowstone and had trouble with steep hikes above 8,000 ft, even carrying only a D7200 and one lens. At lower altitudes I have no problems. In the past I've carried heavy backpacks over 12,000 ft with no problem, so yes weight is relative. (Also age is relative.)

If I had my way I'd probably own about 4 bodies, for different uses, and a few more lenses. That sounds like a pretty crazy thing to do so I have to think about it a little more. And it gets even crazier when you think about the future because that means 4 things to worry about upgrading instead of just one!

You think you've got problems! I'm 74 and had a spinal cord injury 12 years ago which has left the legs a bit doddery :-( But I still get around, and manage a couple of camping trips to Scotland every year

Weight is an issue. I currently use a Df and a D3100 when car travelling, and a compact, usually Coolpix 8400, out on walks. Don't think it's daft to have different cameras for different purposes; on a DSLR I stick on the lens I think is most suitable, and usually leave it there. The D3100 + 16-85 lens weighs about 1050gm, the Df + 28-105D weighs about 1250gm; the D3100 is an "everyday" kit which goes most places, and Df is for when I'm specifically going to take pics and allow more time and care. Had a look at the new Z6 specs, liked what I saw, but that and the 24-70 weigh about 1175gm, so weightwise it rather duplicates what I've got, and my current kit is a bit more flexible. But have been wondering about a D3400 + 18-55 P lens which at 650gm is dead light and could be OK for walks.

 

[Peter in Canberra]

fabulous shots of fabulous scenery.

I have a D3300 and it is a nice body [some suspicion of front focussing at large aperture's with primes but c'est la vie]

I recently got the 70-300 AF-P DX VR and I am also impressed with it.