Nikon Introduce D3500 Entry-Level DSLR

After the new mirrorless Z system with two new bodies and three lenses, plus the 500mm/f5.6 PF in the traditional Nikon F mount, you may think Nikon is done with product announcements for the up-coming Photokina.

 

Well, not quite. Just to show everybody that DSLR is not "dead" yet, Nikon is also announcing a new D3500 DX-format DSLR at the entry level, replacing the previous D3400. The specs haven't changed that much but with some updates. On the D3500 the grip is deeper, similar to that on the D5600. The sensor is still 24.2MP, again DX format. The ISO range is from 100-25600 and it can capture full HD, 1080/60p video.

 

In the US, Nikon USA is not selling the D3500, body only. The price with the AF-P 18-55mm/f3.5-5.6 VR lens is $499.95. The kit that also includes the AF-P 70-300mm/f4.5-6.3 (total two lenses) is $849.95.

 

Please see the following news article from Nikon corporate:

Nikon | News | Nikon releases the D3500 digital SLR camera

 

Product images supplied by Nikon USA

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by ShunCheung

With those specs this thing would run circles around my D300.

The hell? They charge a $350 premium for adding the 70-300 VR? That seems like a bad deal. You can buy a gray-market copy for $140 all day long. Heck, you can buy two copies for less than $350, so you'll have a spare if one of them breaks!

With those specs this thing would run circles around my D300.

The electronics have certainly improved since the 2007 D300; hence you have better high ISO and video features, but the D300 should still have better AF.

Not VR, chulkim - the bundle is the non-VR version, which (since every review I've seen has included a "but for a long lens like this, get the VR version" rider) I assume they're trying to get rid of. It does seem odd to treat this as a bundle with a gap in the middle - I know the 70-300 is optically better than the 55-300, but they still don't look like they "match".

 

So, roughly a D3400 but smaller (good) and cheaper (good) with better battery life (good if it's real world). The finder might be better, though dpreview might be confused.

 

I might have expected the 20MP sensor from the D7500/D500. Unsurprisingly, no PDoS, so they still won't get dpreview's nod in the bracket because of video autofocus.

 

Personally I'd have expected Nikon to go mirrorless with the D3400 replacement first (if it reduces costs and has lower quality requirements) and update the D750 with a dSLR, but I guess Nikon are now worrying about Sony more than Canon. Which is interesting, because I hear DX shooters are leaking to Fuji. Maybe the D5x00 update will be mirrorless.

Not VR, chulkim - the bundle is the non-VR version

 

OMG. (The photo in Shun's post fooled me.) So, they're charging full USA retail for the pack-in 70-300!?! That is ballsy!

Yes, I wouldn't get that bundle (at any price). Nikon have been known to try to get rid of lenses - the D700 had a bundle with the variable aperture 24-120 that everyone hated at one point. The D3400 had the same 70-300 in a bundle.

 

Otherwise it looks like quite an appealing update, though I'm confused how they got better CIPA battery figures with the same screen, flash, processor, battery and sensor. Firmware optimisation?

Just to avoid spreading misinformation, a rumour site has a side by side comparison and confirms my theory that dpreview are confused about the D3400's finder (they assumed the FX magnification figure was the DX one). So no apparent finder difference.

 

Looks like a nice little body for the price. Though I'd pay more attention to a D620/D760/Df2 - but I guess that would really conflict with the Z series launch. I still stand by my "budget D610 with no AF motor or aperture following tab and a lighter finder (pentamirror) than the pentaprism" argument - I just guess that's a Z6 with the adaptor. Except maybe "budget", since it costs more than a D750.

Sorry, I must have blinked and missed the introduction and significance of the P in AF-P.

 

I thought P was reserved for Nikon's diffractive optics lenses, or stood for 'pancake'? So what's with the 18-55 AF-P kit lens?

 

Also; is this iteration of 18-55 VR any good, optically? Used 18-55 Nikkors seem to litter the place, and I've often been tempted to pick one up at a low price, but been put off by the generally bad reputation of them.

Edited August 30, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

As a former D3200 user, and a former Fuji XT-10 user, I think a mirrorless version of this camera would kill a good portion of Fuji's market share.

 

I distinctly remember switching from a D3200+Voigtlander 40mm f/2 to a Fuji XT-10 + 27mm pancake in the hope of getting an even smaller, more portable set-up for everyday photography. Unfortunately, I discovered quite quickly that, for my usage, the X-trans II sensor, and the in-camera JPEG processing on the Fuji were noticeably worse than what I was used to with the 'humble' Nikon 24mp Bayes sensor on the D3200. For those who haven't experienced them, OOC jpegs from the D3xxx series can be breathtaking. Anyway, my Fuji XT-10 was sold very soon and I've now found relative peace with a compact medium format film-based set up.

 

I agree with what someone else has said: Nikon is pursuing Sony, rather than Fuji or Canon, with its new mirrorless designs. Which, to me, means 'stay away'. I'm interested in a small, simple tool, with small, high quality lenses. I want clear, dial based input for the three main variables I care about for my photography: shutter speed, aperture, focus. I just couldn't care less about dual XPDSA card slots, 45465K video capability, 2,534 custom buttons and AF points. I really don't need a 50mm f/1.8 which is as big as an old 105 f/2.5 AI-s. But hey, it has awesome MTF curves, they look good on blog posts of people who blog a lot and take absolutely fantastic photos of brick walls for their 'followers'! Overall, I just cannot see the quality of my photography significantly improving when I switch from a 300 euro set-up to a 3000 euro mirrorless camera.

 

Apologies for the rant. I know, I'm in the minority. I wish somebody would come up with the digital equivalent of a Nikon FE2 + 20/28/45mm/85 light primes. No video, simplest menus possible. Nikon were close to this with the Df. However this is still to expensive for me, and Nikon were vilified so much on the forums for coming up with this camera that I fear they won't follow with a Df2 or even better a 'mirrorless-Df-D3500' so to say.

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.

Not VR, chulkim - the bundle is the non-VR version, which (since every review I've seen has included a "but for a long lens like this, get the VR version" rider) I assume they're trying to get rid of. It does seem odd to treat this as a bundle with a gap in the middle - I know the 70-300 is optically better than the 55-300, but they still don't look like they "match".

 

So, roughly a D3400 but smaller (good) and cheaper (good) with better battery life (good if it's real world). The finder might be better, though dpreview might be confused.

 

I might have expected the 20MP sensor from the D7500/D500. Unsurprisingly, no PDoS, so they still won't get dpreview's nod in the bracket because of video autofocus.

 

Personally I'd have expected Nikon to go mirrorless with the D3400 replacement first (if it reduces costs and has lower quality requirements) and update the D750 with a dSLR, but I guess Nikon are now worrying about Sony more than Canon. Which is interesting, because I hear DX shooters are leaking to Fuji. Maybe the D5x00 update will be mirrorless.

 

On the entry level it's difficult to sell camera with low MP.

As a former D3200 user, and a former Fuji XT-10 user, I think a mirrorless version of this camera would kill a good portion of Fuji's market share.

 

I distinctly remember switching from a D3200+Voigtlander 40mm f/2 to a Fuji XT-10 + 27mm pancake in the hope of getting an even smaller, more portable set-up for everyday photography. Unfortunately, I discovered quite quickly that, for my usage, the X-trans II sensor, and the in-camera JPEG processing on the Fuji were noticeably worse than what I was used to with the 'humble' Nikon 24mp Bayes sensor on the D3200. For those who haven't experienced them, OOC jpegs from the D3xxx series can be breathtaking. Anyway, my Fuji XT-10 was sold very soon and I've now found relative peace with a compact medium format film-based set up.

 

I agree with what someone else has said: Nikon is pursuing Sony, rather than Fuji or Canon, with its new mirrorless designs. Which, to me, means 'stay away'. I'm interested in a small, simple tool, with small, high quality lenses. I want clear, dial based input for the three main variables I care about for my photography: shutter speed, aperture, focus. I just couldn't care less about dual XPDSA card slots, 45465K video capability, 2,534 custom buttons and AF points. I really don't need a 50mm f/1.8 which is as big as an old 105 f/2.5 AI-s. But hey, it has awesome MTF curves, they look good on blog posts of people who blog a lot and take absolutely fantastic photos of brick walls for their 'followers'! Overall, I just cannot see the quality of my photography significantly improving when I switch from a 300 euro set-up to a 3000 euro mirrorless camera.

 

Apologies for the rant. I know, I'm in the minority. I wish somebody would come up with the digital equivalent of a Nikon FE2 + 20/28/45mm/85 light primes. No video, simplest menus possible. Nikon were close to this with the Df. However this is still to expensive for me, and Nikon were vilified so much on the forums for coming up with this camera that I fear they won't follow with a Df2 or even better a 'mirrorless-Df-D3500' so to say.

 

I wouldn't like a Df a camera with f in the name without a reflex finder. I wouldn't want a camera that look like a 35mm camera but shoot only half the frame.

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.

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.

 

Not all - the D5600 also has an exposed top dial. On the plus side, this is less catastrophic if something gets stuck in it (compared with fluff getting behind the conventional dial). On the down side, it's much more likely that something will get stuck in there in the first place. I'm mostly thinking tissue fluff, since my lens caps tend to live in my pockets while I'm shooting.

 

On the entry level it's difficult to sell camera with low MP.

 

20MP is still more than Canon were selling for a while, and Canon made the argument for the 1Dx outresolving the 5D3 (for some reason). Better high ISO performance might be simple enough to swing the argument. So not exactly "low MP", but it's certainly true that there was a mild fuss about the "downgrade" in the D7500 - so there'd have to be another fps or something to justify it. I just thought it made sense for Nikon to consolidate sensors a bit, as Canon have.

 

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.

 

To expand on that, I believe the stepper motor gives a (cheap) repeatable ability to step back and forth, as contrast-detect autofocus needs to do in order to nail focus. (Better, better, better, worse, make sure you only go back one step...) I suspect some AF-S lenses have accurate distance encoders in them so you can give them a preset distance. I believe the Z mount lenses have stepper motors, but since they have PDoS I'm not sure they need it. They appear to have a contrast detect final step option, so I suppose that makes sense. The contrast-detect confirmation step option is on my wish list for dSLRs, too.

 

For what it's worth, I never had an objection to Nikon producing a niche body with fixed-function dials. I did push back on some "this is the better way to do it, Nikon will make future dSLRs this way" comments in the thread, but as an alternative which is less compromised for one style of shooting (and more for others), I don't have a problem - other than that I suspect Nikon would have made more people happy by putting the D4 sensor in a D700/D8x0 series body. Most of my objections to the Df were because I believe they made a pig's ear of the actual implementation: the goal was fine, but making a camera to meet that goal shouldn't have left it as schizophrenic as it was. Especially the pre-AI lens support. But that was another, ridiculously long, thread. I suspect Nikon have higher priorities, but I'd support them having a stab at a Df2 "done right", very likely with an optical finder. Although I've seen someone buy a Df (recently), and there are happy users on this forum, my understanding is that it's a low-volume camera, so I doubt it's economical for them to try.

Andrew! Putting a 20MP sensor in the D3500 isn't going to be less expensive to make yet people especially beginners will think why buying 20MP while the D3400 was 24MP? While it's possible to sell the Df with 16MP and not difficult at all to sell the D5 with 20MP it would be a much harder sell a 20MP D3500.

Low volume is relative, Df has sold more copies than the D5 which is really an excellent camera. I think the issue with the Df is they had internal disagreements about how to implement the Df and came up with a compromise which some love and others not so much. Personally I really like the viewfinder and user interface but not the AF of the Df. If they could put in the D750 AF and offer interchangeable focusing screens, I'd be happy to buy it. But I guess Andrew would want most/all of the left hand side controls moved to the right hand side so there you are, it's hard to reach an agreement between different people. The Z6/Z7/D3500 have almost all controls on the right hand side and I guess it is a happy state of affairs? I personally like to use both hands to operate the camera and enjoy the two-handed experience. Now, because almost all the buttons are on the right hand side, some have said it's dificult to press the +/- buttons in the place they are in the Z7 (and the other two new models).

Andrew! Putting a 20MP sensor in the D3500 isn't going to be less expensive to make yet people especially beginners will think why buying 20MP while the D3400 was 24MP? While it's possible to sell the Df with 16MP and not difficult at all to sell the D5 with 20MP it would be a much harder sell a 20MP D3500.

 

What putting the 20MP sensor in the D3x00 and D5x00 would have done is allow Nikon to standardize on one DX sensor, which could have lead to lower costs for the D7500 and D500 and perhaps slightly better burst performance and high ISO on the D3x00 and D5x00. However, I think Nikon should now make a PDAF enabled variant of the DX sensor and make live view and video AF run smoothly with AF-S lenses and not just AF-P.

What putting the 20MP sensor in the D3x00 and D5x00 would have done is allow Nikon to standardize on one DX sensor, which could have lead to lower costs for the D7500 and D500 and perhaps slightly better burst performance and high ISO on the D3x00 and D5x00. However, I think Nikon should now make a PDAF enabled variant of the DX sensor and make live view and video AF run smoothly with AF-S lenses and not just AF-P.

 

Well, yes. But then they should arguably have done this several years ago while Canon have been having the technical advantage on video. I assume Nikon felt there was some image quality compromise, unless there was a patent issue. And yes, any "downgrade" in spec has to get past consumers, but I'd have hoped that either better high ISO (which I believe the D7500 and D500 have, if I'm not wrong) or a little extra speed would get around that.

 

I am happy that Nikon moved the controls from the left of the screen to the right on the Z cameras. They've always been there on the D5x00 because of the screen hinge; the D3500 moves them too, probably as part of making the camera smaller; they do seem a bit squashed on the Zs, though. Is everything perfect? No, and I will share my list soon; for example, I feel Nikon's modern design is based around keeping the index finger on the shutter while being able to move both dials to change exposure. Which is how the F5 works. But to change ISO or exposure compensation (without the "easy" modes - and the ISO version of that got removed with the new bodies that have ISO on the right) you can no longer change these critical aspects of exposure without taking your finger off the shutter release; it feels like the Nikon ergonomic designers haven't quite realised the reasoning for what they had. The Df makes this worse by putting dials top left, so you need not only to be interrupted from shooting but also to change your grip entirely. To an extent, that's the curse of fixed-function dials - but revisiting all my objections to the Df design decisions is way off-topic. I don't object to two-hand controls, with the understanding that they basically rule out hand-holding longer lenses; hopefully the programmable dial on Z lenses will help with that.

The Df makes this worse by putting dials top left, so you need not only to be interrupted from shooting but also to change your grip entirely. To an extent, that's the curse of fixed-function dials - but revisiting all my objections to the Df design decisions is way off-topic

 

Sorry for following up on the interesting off-topic, but I see no curse there. I suppose whether the Df, to follow your example above, was making things worse or better will depend entirely on you and on your style of photography. For some people and some types of photography, interruptions are a godsend. I personally enjoy my photography as a long series of interruptions interspersed with occasional, and rather rare, shutter actuations. Dials suit me fine for this style of photography.

One thing I am disappointed is that Nikon didn't have the aperture ring on the Z lenses. But then I am no MILC guy so they shouldn't please me. I do like the new command dial and also Nikon didn't put the EC there. Also as I have said before the big knob on the side of the viewfinder is the diopter adjustment and I like the big one like that. I wonder how you change metering mode though.

Can the AF really be that much worse than that of the D300?

Sanford, strongly depends what you use it for; for slow-moving or static photography, the lower-end AF-modules work perfectly fine. But start using the tracking abilities and low-light AF more, and you'll easily notice the D300 is a pretty serious step up.

Sorry for following up on the interesting off-topic, but I see no curse there. I suppose whether the Df, to follow your example above, was making things worse or better will depend entirely on you and on your style of photography. For some people and some types of photography, interruptions are a godsend. I personally enjoy my photography as a long series of interruptions interspersed with occasional, and rather rare, shutter actuations. Dials suit me fine for this style of photography.

 

Understood, Pablo. Once I eventually understood the model of setting the Df's controls independently of raising it to the eye, the control system made somewhat more sense. I just believe they could have achieved that goal with less compromise to the way viewfinder shooting works. I'm not averse to slowing down for some photography, but that's why I have designs on a 5x4. If you're going to be slow for anything, surely it should be landscapes - and the Df is not a landscape camera.

 

I did find myself helping someone with a D3x00 try to put it into continuous shooting mode, while on my travels. I was very confused why I couldn't see anything through the finder while I was holding down the "continuous shooting button" and spinning a dial. I hope the touchscreen on the D3500 will help with this kind of thing.

Can the AF really be that much worse than that of the D300?

 

11 points (like my D90) vs 51. That's pretty much the difference between focus and recompose, and moving the AF point to the subject - which with the resolution of modern sensors can cause a significant focal plane shift. By now I'd hope the D3500 is pretty refined with its 9 points, but it's still 9 points, spread out. I've found the system more usable than I might think with the D90, but I'm mostly pointing the centre point at things and hoping for the best; I'm not using AF tracking like with my other bodies, and I have no luck with erratically moving subjects.