Nikon Introduce D3500 Entry-Level DSLR

AF-P refers to "Pulse" motor which is another name for a stepper motor. It allows nice live view AF and video AF to be implemented without on-sensor PDAF sensors (but on some (older) cameras there are some limitations). The AF is quick and very quiet.

 

PF = Phase Fresnel; these are the lenses which include diffractive optics.

 

- Thanks Ilkka.

I thought the 'silent wave' motors were already effectively stepper motors, since it's difficult to get this type of motor to stop between rotor/stator segments. A difference just of semantics I suspect.

 

Nikon can tinker with how they drive their lenses all they like, but as long as there's an obvious issue with consistent and accurate alignment of image plane with AF module, their viewfinder AF is going to be 'iffy'.

The image plane and AF module are aligned very precisely but the depth of focus can be really short (a micrometer if we're talking about pixel-level detail) with fast lenses. Infinitesimal precision isn't realistic to achieve. While its absolute accuracy can be questioned when photographing static subjects (and may need to be adjusted when first joining the camera and lens), the separate AF module is superior in tracking moving subjects (especially subjects changing distance) in low light with telephoto lenses. In bright light I've gotten 99% of shots in focus on the eye, when photographing dancers with the D5 and 105/1.4 wide open, which I'd say is not bad at all. With shorter focal length fast primes and lower light, the precision and accuracy are not as good, and often in fact I use the 24-70/2.8 E because it has such nice autofocus rather than the faster primes because they are more difficult to get into focus.

 

In the end what is important is getting the emotional moment, interaction etc. and not whether the pixels are the sharpest they can theoretically be. The image isn't going to be printed at wall size in the typical case, anyway, and it's rather silly to talk about detail which no one apart from the photographer will ever see. For me the optical viewfinder is far more important than getting rid of once formidable, but now tiny pain of spending an hour fine tuning a new camera to all my lenses (auto fine tuning makes it in most cases easy and quick). If you don't like the OVF based systems, you can always get an EVF one, and never have to fine tune focus, and everyone can be happy. Of course you might realize that your shots still aren't always in focus, in which case I'll just kindly say "one doesn't like to say I told you so".

 

I used to think viewfinder AF can't possibly be accurate enough to photograph approaching subjects at f/1.4 with a high-resolution camera body, but when I was in London I experimented with the 3D tracking of the D850 along with the 105/1.4 (a lens with very precise AF, I might say). I usually use 9-point dynamic in the D5 and that has given me really great results, because as a walking person moves up and down a bit when taking steps, the eyes move up and down and the 9-point dynamic allows me to point the primary point on the eye and let it go on the face as the head moves up and back to the eye. This way it never focuses on the hair and practically always on the eye, but this only works out as well on the D5, with the D850 (with its standard battery somehow I can't get such precision with the D9 mode. But with 3D Tracking I do get basically 90%+ of the shots in focus even with the D850's 45MP sensor, wide open with the 105mm lens. This is the kind of precision I could never have dreamed possible. I guess the reason it works so well is that the 105/1.4 is very sharp and has much less LoCA than is typical of Nikon portrait telephoto lenses. The subject recognition is surprisingly able to compensate for hand shake, much better than one would think by looking at the moving active point in the viewfinder (which can only be shown at one of the 51 points rather than the full 153, but the actual focusing system uses all 153).

 

I'm well aware that with f/1.4 wide angle primes, the AF doesn't work as well, and in this area I would expect the mirrorless with native lenses to be a bit better because it can use contrast detect AF to finalize the focus. However, unfortunately when using the Z cameras with FTZ adapter, and F mount lens, there is only PDAF and no CDAF and that means that in low light probably it requires a native lens to beat the DSLRs in focus. The DSLR PDAF sensor has greater sensitivity in low light and also greater range (which is why it works so nicely with telephoto lenses).

Edited August 30, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

I guess the only really surprising thing to me on this new D3500 is how the command wheel takes a design clue from the Z6/Z7, sitting on top rather than inside the body above the thumb rest like all DSLRs to date.

 

The top mounted dial reminds me of the placement on the N8008(s), N90(s) and a handful of other late 80s/early 90s mid-range SLRs. I actually rather like it on those cameras, and wouldn't mind seeing it come back across the board even though the rear dial placement has been more or less standardized since the F5.

I thought the 'silent wave' motors were already effectively stepper motors, since it's difficult to get this type of motor to stop between rotor/stator segments. A difference just of semantics I suspect.

 

Regardless of the semantics, AF-S and AF-P lenses are fundamentally different in the real world in my experience.

 

AF-S lenses(or I should specify "real" ring motor AF-S lenses) tend to acquire focus quickly but can be a bit "jerky" in operation and also can make a variety of mechanical noises. Of course, some are notorious for "squeaking" and can be rather noisy if they do, but a whirring type sound is common.

 

I don't own any AF-P lenses, but have played with them in the store. For all intents and purposes, the ones I've used are silent-they make a slight hum that's hard to differentiate from VR if you hold them to your ear. They also tend to focus very smoothly, but if one compared like-for-like I suspect that the AF-S lens would focus faster.

 

Of course, the AF-P kit lenses are, IMO, a huge improvement over the old AF-S kit lenses. I'd describe them as basically being a "screwdriver" lens that moves the focus motor into the lens body. They require flipping a switch for MF, and MF is by a tiny hard plastic ring with virtually no damping. They're as noisy as a screwdriver lens, too.

I managed to get a 'cheap' D3200 in the hope of using it to 'scan' slides only to find that it couldn't be tethered 'cos Nikon didn't support their own camera.

 

I gather about 4 years later it could be by independent software.

 

However, in bang-for-buck, it's a lovely sensor at base ISO with RAW converted by DXO.

I managed to get a 'cheap' D3200 in the hope of using it to 'scan' slides only to find that it couldn't be tethered 'cos Nikon didn't support their own camera.

 

I gather about 4 years later it could be by independent software.

 

However, in bang-for-buck, it's a lovely sensor at base ISO with RAW converted by DXO.

 

Except for the 12-bit lossy-only raw files. :-)

I operate the sub command dial with my forefinger, and don't mind removing my finger from the shutter release (it never crossed my mind that this would be inconvenient). So the ISO button is fine where it is now, from my purposes, but I do find operating the record button problematic whereas in the previous (D800 etc.) arrangement the mode button was hard to get to when the record button took its old place (where MODE is on the F100, for example). Having too many buttons in a small space isn't really good design, in my opinion, and I don't really see why movie record needed to be placed where it is. Anyway, I get by however they make it. To me it is not an issue if there are some left hand side buttons - in operating most of my lenses hand held there is no issue. The PF telephotos should make it possible to just take off one's hand from under the lens even with the 500/5.6 and press whatever buttons need to be pressed. And the 500/4 etc. probably sit on tripod or monopod while in use, for most people. I guess it is the intermediate weight lenses such as the 200-500 mainly which are light enough to use hand held but too heavy to hang from the body, that make these left-hand side buttons inconvenient to use. I have only one such lens, the 200/2, which I regularly use hand-held but this lens has the lens buttons which permit me to switch between dynamic area and group area AF easily without taking my hand off the lens, and I hardly ever alter exposure settings other than exposure compensation, when I'm shooting, so no easy access to MODE would be fine, but with record button reprogrammed to it, is even more fine. But the 200-500 has no lens buttons. As for the Df, I simply wouldn't consider it for photographing action with a long lens, it doesn't have high-performance AF or vertical grip, so it's not meant for that kind of applications. I always loved the F3HP and the Df reminds me of it. I don't think the designers meant it to be efficient, but have the photographer feel and take their time to make settings. Lenses with aperture rings are probably a better fit for it in terms of matching the original ergonomics of a Nikon, and of the manual focus era.

Except for the 12-bit lossy-only raw files. :)

 

 

Well, it's really hard to see the difference between 12-bit and 14-bit files and also the difference between lossy and lossless compressed (or uncompressed); Nikon's lossy compression is visually lossless and quite clever.

Well, it's really hard to see the difference between 12-bit and 14-bit files and also the difference between lossy and lossless compressed (or uncompressed); Nikon's lossy compression is visually lossless and quite clever.

 

Well, yes. But if we're going to say nice things about the raw files, there's an elephant in the room, even if it's a small one. :-)

 

I operate the sub command dial with my forefinger, and don't mind removing my finger from the shutter release (it never crossed my mind that this would be inconvenient).

 

Canon shooter! :-) (I see this as the main philosophical difference between the designs, along with the swirly ring dial on the back of Eos bodies.)

 

Having too many buttons in a small space isn't really good design, in my opinion, and I don't really see why movie record needed to be placed where it is. Anyway, I get by however they make it.

 

Agree, if they're too pushed together. I'm a little worried about that on the Z series - I have fat thumbs. What I'd like is chording (hold down multiple buttons) and push-and-turn dials (like Fuji). But basically for everything to be optional and programmable, and let people who prefer having some functionality not immediately under their fingers leave it there. I'm quite happy with white balance and image quality controls being on the left of the camera, for example, but others may not be. I just want options to configure the camera how I want, not the subset based on what made it easier for the Nikon tech writers to document it in the user guide.

 

The PF telephotos should make it possible to just take off one's hand from under the lens even with the 500/5.6 and press whatever buttons need to be pressed.

 

I'd say that's borderline. It's about the same weight and slightly longer than the 70-200. I'll hold that by the camera (the mk1 80-200 didn't have a lens collar, which makes me think it's okay) but I don't feel good about it. The same with the older 300mm f/4 that I own (which very closely matches the size and weight of the new 500mm). But with my 200-500 or 200 f/2, I'm happy to hand-hold, but not to go one-handed. And having recently tried a 400mm f/2.8 FL, the same applies there, with knobs on. And I suspect 400mm owners might want fast access to their controls.

 

And the 500/4 etc. probably sit on tripod or monopod while in use, for most people.

 

I don't know. The 400mm f/2.8 and up, yes - but I understand a lot of birders hand-hold the 500mm f/4.

 

I have only one such lens, the 200/2, which I regularly use hand-held but this lens has the lens buttons which permit me to switch between dynamic area and group area AF easily without taking my hand off the lens, and I hardly ever alter exposure settings other than exposure compensation, when I'm shooting, so no easy access to MODE would be fine, but with record button reprogrammed to it, is even more fine. But the 200-500 has no lens buttons.

 

I should try that on the 200 f/2 (I don't really use the buttons), but I'm more tempted by the "return to focal length" option a lot of the time. And yes, the lack of inputs on the 200-500 is a bit awkward.

 

I don't think the designers meant it to be efficient, but have the photographer feel and take their time to make settings. Lenses with aperture rings are probably a better fit for it in terms of matching the original ergonomics of a Nikon, and of the manual focus era.

 

Absolutely. I expected it to be compromised (or more specifically given a focus on shorter lenses), just not quite so much. :-) But I really don't want another thousand-post rant on my criticisms of the Df.