# Impressive sensor on the D3400



## goodguy (Nov 7, 2016)

DXO has compared the D3400 to the D5500 and D3300
Very impressive
Nikon D3400 vs Nikon D5500 vs Nikon D3300 | DxOMark

But one negative, low light performance is down by about 10%


----------



## Advanced Photo (Nov 7, 2016)

It looks pretty comparable to the 5500 still.
I am not too surprised there hasn't been a huge breakthrough with this offering.
I generally don't shoot at higher than ISO 1600 max and 800 normally is the highest I'd use.
If I want to take shots in darkness a FLIR is a better choice I think.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 7, 2016)

Wondering how ISO invariant the sensor will be when the shadows are "lifted" after shooting at different effective ISO levels, such as when you under-expose, a lot, to protect highlights, and then use software to brighten up the shadows. This was **the** big difference between the D7100 and the D7200...the D7200 yielded wayyyyyy less noise in the shadows than the D7100 did.


----------



## Drive-By-Shooter (Dec 16, 2016)

i bought my wife the D3300 with a sigma 2.8 normal zoom.  
not sure if it is a different sensor than those you discuss, but the pictures are great.  
a good value that combo.


----------



## KmH (Dec 16, 2016)

I'm pretty sure they all use Sony's IMX193 Exmor image sensor.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 16, 2016)

goodguy said:


> DXO has compared the D3400 to the D5500 and D3300
> Very impressive
> Nikon D3400 vs Nikon D5500 vs Nikon D3300 | DxOMark
> 
> But one negative, low light performance is down by about 10%


I've always been curious how the image processing affects the sensor performance.
Even though my D750 and D600 used the same sensor, the low light JPEG performance of the D600 is superior in my opinion, even though the same processor (though different image processing expeed chips, etc) and of course why are they different than Sony cameras outfitted with the same sensors.

fyi, I'll be getting a D5500 soon here .. or later .. sooner or later


----------



## Derrel (Dec 17, 2016)

Wondering if maybe Nikon thought D600 users might be more likely to want better JPEG images than D750 users, who might be less likely to shoot in JPEG mode?


----------



## Drive-By-Shooter (Dec 17, 2016)

same processor - I did not know that.
in-cam processing? surely a huge factor.
sony makes all the processors, so, yes i've wondered about processing, too.

an interesting theory is that they were started by *S*tandard *O*il of *N*ew *Y*ork!



astroNikon said:


> I've always been curious how the image processing affects the sensor performance.
> Even though my D750 and D600 used the same sensor, the low light JPEG performance of the D600 is superior in my opinion,... of course why are they different than Sony cameras outfitted with the same sensors.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 17, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > DXO has compared the D3400 to the D5500 and D3300
> ...


Ohh, that's interesting, why D5500 ?


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 17, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Wondering if maybe Nikon thought D600 users might be more likely to want better JPEG images than D750 users, who might be less likely to shoot in JPEG mode?


It's odd though. The D750 comes with the snapbridge thing which allows you to quickly get the images to your smartphone for quick uploading to social media .. all via JPEGs only.

Plus shooting in JPEG I can quickly process the images in lightroom and get them uploaded asap.  saves tons of time in the overall process  _and _they are freebies for the parents..  Distance to subject also plays a factor in more clean images which varies in sports in low light, bad quality indoor lighting.  Today I'm going to position myself in the middle of the field, versus one end, that should help a lot.  Though with the D600 I would just be at one end.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 17, 2016)

goodguy said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > goodguy said:
> ...


A lot of soul searching and financial calculations went into that decision.

I want the 1.5x crop mode and I *need* a flippy screen.  When attached to my telescope I've found that flippy screen on the d750 to be so much more worthwhile than the fixed D600/D7x00.  When you can't look into the viewfinder or see the LCD without essentially getting on the ground, you end up having to lift & raise a 100+lb telescope and recalibrate everything. PITA.

The flippy screen eliminates that.

I looked and used the D500 for a while but the $2k price tag made it prohibitive.  And the low light tests were pretty good up to HI 1 ISO, after that a quick dropoff in quality - at least for me. And since most scope stuff is long exposure, just take a longer exposure.

The d500 at Hi 1 ISO is similar to the D750 at 9,000 ISO (can take it up to 51200).  and looks similar to the D5500 at 8,000 (can go up the 20,000 in good images which start degrading more up to 25,600).  and the D7200 at 8,000 too.  Not a very scientific test by far, but a quick one.

Add to that, attached to a telescope I don't need 2 dials (aperture is fixed); the spotting 1,000mm scope (a telescope) is also fixed.  And using my tamron 150-600 I'm always at f/8, once again not needing 2 dials.

Plus, with my big scope and 1.5x crop, I'll be at 9,000mm FOV.  kewl.

plus the d5x00 series is supported for an easy "gutting" to full spectrum when I want to do that.

at the very beginning of this long road I nearly bought a D5100 but got a d7000.  My telescope at that time was much smaller too.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 17, 2016)

Very salient point in not needing the second control when when using a truly FIXED aperture optic, or a lens that sort of requires being stopped to a specific f/value for whatever reason.


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 17, 2016)

Derrel said:


> Very salient point in not needing the second control when when using a truly FIXED aperture optic, or a lens that sort of requires being stopped to a specific f/value for whatever reason.


The Tamron 150-600 is sharpest at f/8.  So I set it and forget it at f/8.


----------

