Our road-trip is just around the corner and my thoughts have turned to packing camera gear – if I’m not charging batteries, I’m agonising over lenses or bag capacity! Last year, I packed too much for the road. One evening on the aforementioned trip, I ended up clambering over red dirt-hills with two shoulder bags crammed with gear ~ each bag worn cross-bodied. I was fumbling with cameras, switching lenses at dusk in dusty conditions, jogging to catch the vanishing light, and dropping lens caps. At the time, I made a promise to pack more rationally for big trips like that. So, here I am again, with my camera stuff covering the table.
One thing I’ve always liked about the Nikon Corporation is that the engineers have never skimped on putting good quality digital sensors in their cameras at all pricing levels. Even in the 3xxx beginner DSLR line, the image making capacity has always been top-notch. This is why I’ve no qualms about packing a Nikon D3400 in my bag for the road ~ a 24.2 megapixel DSLR announced in 2016 that only weighs 395g without the battery or a lens. And the sensor in the D3400 is no slouch – it bests the Toshiba-made CMOS sensor in my beloved D7100. It has greater dynamic range, more colour depth, and excellent ISO range. It will sit right next to my Nikon Z5 very easily.
More importantly, the D3400 is so light! All of that photo-making capacity in such a light plastic body. For this road adventure, I think it will get a lot more use than my significantly heavier and bulkier D7100 did on the trip last year. It doesn’t have the speed of the high-end Nikon bodies and it lacks lots of external controls but none of that matters because my photography needs don’t cross into the high-speed fanaticism of sports or wildlife photography – apart, perhaps, from the odd photo of a sitting duck or two.
Since my needs are simple, a simple body will suffice. It’s a light camera that offers great image quality. The right tool for the right job, according to need. Nikon may brand it a beginner’s DSLR, but it offers more than enough control and photo-mojo for my needs: It enables me to make photos, it has a button I can program to change ISO, and it offers me plenty of control over light. Calling it a beginner DSLR is mostly about Nikon rationalising their camera lines and appealing to different kinds of photographers – you’re into fast sports? Get our super fast full–frame camera! You’re into photos of birthday parties? Get this beginner DSLR instead!
I’ve yet to really use the D3400 seriously, but it strikes me as an interesting camera. Released by Nikon at a time when small and sexy mirrorless cameras were fast taking market-share from the DSLR duopoly of Canon and Nikon, the D3400 seems like the last gasp of an old company that hadn’t quite realised the grim future of the bulky DSLR and they were desperately trying to downsize their cameras to appeal to consumers who were already buying into smaller and lighter mirrorless models.
Discover more from The Rusty Ruin Journal
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Rusty Ruin Journal 
This is going to sound like a lecture, or worse, a castigation, but please believe me when I say I’m not trying to call you out. I’m interested in your opinion and reasoning for packing what you say is a very capable camera but also the Z5.
It’s just that I’ve read the thoughts above expressed by other photographers in articles I’ve read in the nine years since its release. And I’ve read similar things about other lightweight “consumer” cameras.
But then, why even pack the more expensive models? All the photographers I’ve read that review these kinds of cameras say how great they are . . . but they all own top-of-the-line cameras, and almost exclusively use those instead of the cheaper/lighter models.
One reason might be the compatibility of lenses and the ability to drive them, but even then, surely even the kit lenses that were introduced around the same time as the D3400 were better than what was available 20 years ago. Heck, I use the kit lens that came with the D7500 over using the much heavier 70-200mm f/2.8 or the massive 80-400mm (both older than 20 years) because I can’t tell the difference in output for the majority of what I shoot. Sure, the modern equivalent of those heavy lenses are much better than the versions I own (and lots more expensive), but we conversed before about lugging heavy equipment around. I’m looking to go smaller.
Know that I ask myself the same question . . . why travel with the D7500 and two lenses when I could easily make do (and have done so) with just the P900? And now, with the improvement in phone cameras, the combination of the P900 and phone is difficult to beat for compactness and convenience.
I’m curious about your reason for packing the Z5 (I suspect it’s the lenses), but I know I prefer having the capability of the D7500 and not need it, as opposed to needing it and not have it. Some of it is also the handling (the P900 has an awful viewfinder, and shutter lag), but that’s also the fact the D7500 has a better sensor (larger), and the images are demonstrably better over a wider range of conditions.
But I wonder how much is due to another factor . . . call it pride, ego, whatnot, I ‘feel’ more like a photographer with the D7500. Dials, buttons, settings, the handling of the controls and lens, it’s all more satisfying than the P900.
Maybe it’s envy. I’ve experienced that the first time I exclusively used the P900; a lady was near me using a DSLR with an expensive lens, I’m snapping away with the P900, and I felt the need to say the old, “My other camera is…”
I don’t feel that any more, but still, I rarely bring the P900 when I travel.
After all that, any thoughts?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. All perfectly reasonable points! I must admit to you – I ask myself the same question often. Why not just bring the smallest best camera I have and leave the rest in the cupboard? If it’s about travelling light, why am I cramming extra cameras into the bag space? I guess there are a few reasons – you’re right when you suggest that it’s about the lenses, particularly the Z glass. I don’t have a telephoto for the Z5, so if I want to cover that focal length, I need to take an F-mount, which means another camera. So, the Z5 is a great low-light camera with excellent glass. I have an ultra-wide for it but no telephoto. The D3400 (or any of my other D series Nikons) doesn’t have an ultra-wide (I traded it away), so if I want that focal length, I’m looking at the Viltrox on the Z5. It’s the game of mounts I guess. I have the FTZ adapter, which means I could just use F glass on the Z5, but then I’m dealing with a crop because they are DX lenses only. Just easier to go native and carry the D3400, for which they were designed in the first place.
It doesn’t stop there though. I’ve considered the possibility of ego and vanity and I find that it has rarely bothered me much. Truthfully, I rarely see other photographers when out and about anyway. The last photographer I spoke to was lugging around a Lowepro bag with a Nikon and some glass. I had my Z5 but I was more interested in his bag at the time, as I was in the market for one. He was interested in the Z5 as he’d yet to move to mirrorless. It never really bothers me what people are using versus what I’m using. I’ve stood next to people with huge Canon L glass and I’m there with an Olympus, a cheap adapter, and a lens from the 60s, but I find that I’m not concerned. I’m often interested in what they are using but I don’t think of it in terms of what I have or not. There was a time when I felt the need to upgrade to a better body, but I quickly learned that it didn’t matter much.
Ok, so it’s the lens mount and focal length game. That partly explains it. I think the other reason is novelty. I just like cameras and photography. I could use any of those bodies and be happy, honestly. It satisifes my novelty seeking to just have access to different cameras on a trip like this. I’m also taking the D40x because I am curious about its rendering. I don’t need it, but it satisfies my curiosity.
One other reason is backup. I’ve had cameras fail on me when on these trips. I guess there’s some paranoia there. Ar the very least, I’d always take two bodies and lenses with me, just to minimise this risk. Call it bad luck.
Lastly, if I’m out and we stop somewhere for a quick photo, I don’t always have time to switch lenses for a different look and length. It’s easier and faster to cover those options when I have two cameras, each one with a different lens for an occasion. I have the cameras to choose from, so I might as well use them to make my life easier.
I could use the phone camera, as it’s quite nice, but I so rarely do. There was a time when I did but I much prefer to use a big camera.
I hope that provides some answers!
LikeLike
Fair enough.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Inspired by your question, I wrote an entire post about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
beautiful images, I particularly like the first one.
my first camera was the d3100. So light!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. We’ve been pretty spoiled for a long time when it comes to digital cameras. AS much as I’d like to bring some larger cameras, I’d really rather travel light this year.
LikeLike