I don't want my images to look like film.

I think the biggest giveaway that any image is from digital is the level of sharpness/detail at 100%. 35mm film doesn't stand a chance, unless it's some crazy low ISO B&W that was drum scanned. Even some 120 films would choke, though color detail would still be superior.

D3400 is for a smartphone user looking for get into 'real' photography - it is not for a D810 user. So intentional or not, at least it speaks to the intended user.

Here, I copied the rest of the quote for you.

"it offers impressive image quality that will put any smartphone camera to shame while being incredibly easy to use - important aspects of a product aimed primarily at entry-level consumers."

Just as this camera isn't aimed at experts, neither really was that line. Sorry for the 'fail.'

"Just as this camera isn't aimed at experts" .... I wonder why you keep saying that, this camera is aimed at all camera aficionados, budget-conscious camera loving consumers and experts alike. There are lots of reasons to own a D3xx and it being Nikon's best seller certainly proves that. Bottom line this camera is for all those who realize the limitations of cellphone cameras and who are not necessarily stark amateurs as you seem to imply... that is why I find your comment so far off the mark.

For the most part, cell phones as cameras are the modern day equivalent of the Kodak Instamatic cameras of 20 to 30 years ago. The fact that many more people owned Instamatic cameras than SLR's didn't doom Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. to extinction. I don't think the situation is any different today in that regard.

Fuji have a decent selection of APSC lenses compared to Nikon - whose lenses are mainly full frame.

We're not talking strictly first party lenses here, are we?

I agree that Nikon hasn't put focus on DX specific lenses, but then we have Sigma and Tokina, both of which have put out very nice offerings in the last couple of years (and last time I checked they weren't available for X mount).

The day that an app for the phone is more important than the camera specifications is when you undertand that is no longer a camera website and its another cell phone website. BTW, the D5300 and the D5500 they also have WiFi in case you didn't know. An app is not a camera feature, an app is just something you put on the phone and has no effect on the pictures you take.

Anyway, the question was directed to https://www.dpreview.com/members/5851727830 because he write this thread and I know he do know about photography, so I will ask again, would you recommend this camera over the D3300, D5200, D5300, D5500 and D7100 to a friend?

Contract? This isn't the 90s man, buy the iPhone unlocked for $749.

Damn dog hasn't said a word to me since he got here.

Playing fetch with that dog IS the treat.... for me.

I agree that the USC should not have been removed. On the other hand it is not that efficient and often can't remove all spots on a sensor.

Also most people can easily clean the sensor themselves by using a blower for dust and for instance a sensor gel stick or a similar product for difficult spots. So it is not exactly a big disaster to leave out USC.

Indeed, these ultrasonic cleaners don't do very much anyway. They'll dislodge larger particles but a couple of blasts from a blower is probably equally good.

I've found the ultrasonic sensor cleaning on my K5 incredibly effective. In all the years I've used the camera I've never once had to clean the sensor manually. It just stays pristine.

And yet here we are, on a gear forum, reading about new gear - how shocking. Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean others aren't interested. You could say most cameras do "about the same thing", but the details are why we're all here.

I'd like to think that I have something better to do than comment on otherwise uninteresting stuff. But here I am.

I am interested.

people read camera reviews, when they google a camera model. This site will get more hits and add to their number to justify advertisement. Most people reading reviews don't comment, create login and don't care to talk camera. I guess they have better thing to do, I don't know. Baby nikon like D3xx line sell more then their other nikon models and get people into the nikon line. Same as rebel for canon, etc.

Plenty of people read this site and are most interested in top spec gear, but actually use more vanilla toys, so the acknowledgement of these high volume sellers is in my view important.

Keep in mind these entry level DSLRs are often competing with the "oh, I'll just take my smartphone instead" crowd. It needs to be small, light, easy to use, and get good results without post processing for the target market. Seems like it does that quite nicely. There are also people who might think their smartphone takes just as good pictures as a DSLR thanks to highly misleading smartphone company marketing, so I don't see the harm in pointing it out on an entry level DSLR.

Dude with screen name of Camera-racist isn't open minded...WOW, for real?!?

Sorry. It would be 30/1.4 for APS sensor

The 35mm 1.8 is very nice, small, cheap, and light. A 35 1.2 would almost certainly not be cheap or light.

What Tonio said. There's a fair bit of distortion for a normal prime but it's easily fixed. Great value lens!

Not only but many are missing in Nikon's Dx lineup 😒

great Javier, I can't speak to NaBalam's "everything that is wrong" comment, but I can list a few downgrades:
-Less powerful flash
-No ultrasonic sensor cleaning
-No external microphone jack

What @pacnwhobbyist said.

You hit the nail on the head. No OEM has the "guts or sense or ability" to clean-sheet a large sensor (APS-C) camera with complete capabilities that is also VERY SIMPLE to you. Unwiling and unable to redesign the interface and guts of the camera. The "tyro" doesn't need so many buttons, dials, levers, flaps, etc. This doesn't appeal to a smart phone users any more than other APS-C cameras.

Do you really think that someone who just shoots with the smartphone ( and nowday cameras are very capable ) would ever care about a DSLR? I wonder if they do ever use raw and post process, usually those people just want an instant result to post in a social network, share or well keep for themself with little or no extra work. Carrying a DSLR, lens and the like for them is hard to imagine, at least for me. Maybe a bridge camera will fit them better. To go for a DSLR they shall develop a more complex or exquisite taste for photography. Of course that is just my opinion.

@Polacofede: You'd be suprised: Being the local camera geek @theoffice I have been consulted on a nearly weekly basis for the last months.. People who take a liking to photography find themselves limited by their phones and want to experience what else might be possible. Phones kill compacts..Bot mirror or mirroless do find buyers.

You know, I have noticed that in portraits from my Flickr contacts. Fuji just nails it across the board.

My favorite lens for any Nikon DX camera, hands down. Cheap, sharp, fast. @Kaelis I had hoped when they launched it that they had plans for more lenses in a DX prime lens lineup, but apparently not.

I'm regretting writing that. It's really just a reference to the intended audience of this camera.

Edit - I've edited it to make the text a bit more clear (I hope).

I'd strongly suggest changing that. Really, any modern DSLR will put any smartphone camera to shame. My D3300 does, for instance.

I'd suggest instead saying something along the lines of it being a sound option for someone who wants to go beyond smartphone photography.

Mincing words guys? Relax... go out.. take some pictures :)
Use what you prefer

@stanislaff: If this Nikon is like any other crop 24 mp camera, then the stagnation you suggest means it is endemic to the whole industry. Samsung anyone?

With 12 bit compressed raws :p. Nikon applies terribly agressive noise reduction and sharpening and saturation in jpeg so they look punchy ooc. It doesn't tell you much about the sensor.

Yeah but Nikon's DX entry and mid range cameras are great value. If they'd only make some quality primes to complement the 35/1.8 it'd be hard to justify the expense of the new 24MP Fujis. Sadly Nikon DX has no answer to Fuji's beautiful glassware.