Lack of lever EE for reading the extreme position of the diaphragm ring
У Nikon D40 selected compatibility with AF-type optics (optics with support for automatic focusing, but with no built-in focus motor). With such lenses Nikon D40 and all subsequent cameras that do not have a focus motor can only operate in manual focus mode. At the same time, all other important functions are preserved, one of them is measuring exposure.
У D3400 removed compatibility with type optics Non-g (any lenses with a diaphragm control ring), namely, the camera was cut out lever EE, to read the end position of the diaphragm ring. Now with any lenses having an aperture control ring (Non-g type of lenses, in particular lenses AF, AF D, AF-S D, AF-I D) will have to work as with manual ones - not only manually focus, but also manually set the shutter speed, aperture and ISO.
What does this ultimately give? Often users of low-cost Nikon SLR cameras could buy cheap Nikon 50mm 1: 1.8D AF Nikkor (or any other inexpensive NON-G lens) and lose only auto focus, now with Nikon D3400 will be lost and auto metering exposure. Working with such lenses will become not only without automatic focusing, but also with manual exposure control.
And the most annoying thing is that Nikon D3400 will no longer automatically focus even with some AF-S lenses, which have a built-in focus motor, but at the same time there is a diaphragm control ring. Of course, there are very few such lenses (I know only 16 pieces), but nevertheless, the integrity of the system is again slightly violated.
C Nikon D3400 и с D3500 will not work even lenses with built-in focus motor:
- Nikon ED AF S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
- Nikon ED AF S Nikkor 28-70mm 1: 2.8D SWM
- Nikon ED AF S Nikkor 80-200mm 1: 2.8D Silent wave motor
- Nikon ED AF S Nikkor 300mm 1: 4D
- Nikon ED AF-I Nikkor 300mm 1: 2.8D
- Nikon ED AF S Nikkor 300mm 1: 2.8D
- Nikon ED AF S Nikkor 300mm 1: 2.8D II
- Nikon ED AF-I Nikkor 400mm 1: 2.8D
- Nikon ED AF S Nikkor 400mm 1: 2.8D [black / silver]
- Nikon ED AF S Nikkor 400mm 1: 2.8D II
- Nikon ED AF-I Nikkor 500mm 1: 4D
- Nikon ED AF S Nikkor 500mm 1: 4D
- Nikon ED AF S Nikkor 500mm 1: 4D II
- Nikon ED AF-I Nikkor 600mm 1: 4D
- Nikon ED AF S Nikkor 600mm 1: 4D
- Nikon ED AF S Nikkor 600mm 1: 4D II
Find Nikon lens compatibility information in my article. here.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
the saddest thing is that in the mirrorless there will be a new bayonet mount
There it is still excusable
Just like others. Most likely there will be an adapter with autofocus.
At a price of almost 30 tr for the carcass it’s not a cheap SLR anymore, for this price you can take almost zero d7100, you can take a BZK (including a new kit), you can take a d5100 with 2-3 glasses, and a lot of things can be taken. That is, it is difficult for beginners to advise such an entry-level DSLR. On the other hand, marketing, it’s necessary to somehow sell expensive new glasses to those who think of taking it for 30 tr. In professional mirrors, the screwdriver and lever will not be removed for a long time, because there are still very expensive screwdrivers.
Oh, how glad I would be if they had mounted a F mount in mirrorless mirrors. Or, at least for professional cameras, made mirrorless mounts with F mount. But they want to earn money on a new mount as well, because this will not happen.
It will be a failure. I won’t be surprised if the sales of this model are minimal and Nikon will then let all its marketers catch up to sell this junk as soon as possible. And marketers, like a snake in a frying pan, will dodge, invent beautiful words to vparit such a product to the consumer. Personally, I would not buy this, this optimization is equal to sabotage, even if they themselves take pictures with such cameras.
This is not their first step down. As far as I remember, a screwdriver and a rheostat were taken from the D7500, and at the same time a second slot and a battery handle.
Yes, the d7500 removed the diaphragm rheostat (there is no metering with manuals), the battery handle (more precisely, the possibility of its use) and the second slot, but there is a screwdriver there.
So to the end, I don’t understand why DSLRs do not have exposure metering in aperture priority mode if the lens does not have any levers / contacts, etc. I see only artificial limitations in this. Any mirrorless lens allows you to screw up any manual lens and everything works fine in the aperture priority mode.
Older cameras have metering with any lens.
The younger ones don't, partly because of marketing, partly because of compatibility with older lenses. In the case of Nikon, for this you need to add one simple detail - the diaphragm rheostat, which connects the parts of the lens to the camera. Mirrorless cameras don't need to drag along the old optics fleet and compatibility. This is both a plus and a minus.
Mirrorless makes metering at the working aperture value, that's why everything works.
But with Nikon, in the case of the native manual, the diaphragm will always be open, due to the mechanism of the jumping diaphragm, and it closes only at the time of shooting, so if you don’t twist it, metering will not work. Only use an older carcass that can read the position of the diaphragm ring.
Although it would be possible to make a measurement as in the Kiev-19 camera, her exposure meter turned on when I pressed the diaphragm repeater, it closed, and it was possible to measure. But, this is very simple, marketers will not understand this.
With regard to Nikon, I had this in mind. I myself have Kiev.
Most likely, this technique is acquired by beginner amateurs along with a whale lens. And the owners of this miracle do not even think to wind up other optics, unlike the more advanced and informed ones, which continue to shoot on the d40 and d50.
Yes. Nikon is not the same. (
Quite the same: D40 - took the screwdriver, D7500 - missed the diaphragm rheostat and the second card slot, D750 - opened prof. control and 1/8000, D600 - squeezed normal autofocus, Df - and the second slot for memory cards, and - 1/8000, and - normal autofocus, for advanced amateur there is no metering with unchipped glasses, etc. etc.
For a long time, Nikon has not systematically reported anything to you practically in his every new camera; over the past 10 years, perhaps, another camera has accumulated underexposed. Officially, I demand from Nikon to make this camera with everything squeezed for all the time and give it out to everyone absolutely free. We deserve it!
Removed - and good, the road is a tablecloth. Good riddance, as the French say. And if you read the comments, it seems that such cameras are bought only to put on a 50 / 1,8D and twist the focus with your hands, are you honest people? Turn on your head and think again - the one who buys the D3400 will not get 50 / 1,8D, even if he had the ability to measure. AND EVEN if there was a screwdriver. The reason, as you might have guessed, is trivial - the first thing such a hypothetical owner will ask is: "where is there to press or twist to bring it closer?" And when he understands what the catch is, there will be no limit to disappointment.
It was one - two: it's stupidly expensive. Yeah, expensive. Let me explain: on the D3400, you can easily attach AF-P objectos (which won't even start on this D7000 of yours, ahahaha!) And the most necessary and running one (18-55) costs the same a little more than $ 80. At the same time, the mass and dimensions are comparable to the same half-line, the sharpness (at the fix !!!) did not even lie nearby in comparison with this whale, but the fact that the luminosity was underperformed - well, 4 stops of stabilization in most scenes that the user D3400 will shoot he will be rescued. So why, one wonders, should he take an inconvenient (50mm on the crop is never a universal solution), unsharp, expensive ancient fix? And not so old but already quite good 35 / 1,8G, thank Nikon, it will live and work quite well on the D3400. And you will not find anything better and cheaper among D-glasses for such a fresh crop as the D3400.
Well, what arguments do you still have, gentlemen? What? Louder, can't I hear? Ah, bokeh, you say ...
Well, firstly, ask anyone, the essence of photography is not in bokeh, they say you need to be able to learn to build a composition without using optical blur, and secondly, since such a thing has gone - for bokeh, I would recommend 3400 / 85G to the user of D1.8, that's really where bokeh is so bokeh, poltinic smacks his lips again. Sharply, quickly, to-r-a-s-and-in-about. And quite inexpensive, by the way. For the owner of the D3400, anyway.
This lever is not needed, guys, no-well-wives. And for a long time. Another question is that the marketers sawed it out, and took the savings for themselves, probably without lowering the price tag for the carcass - this is of course filth. Here you can already justifiably urge.
The question is not fifty dollars. The question is the integrity of the system, which is a very important factor. If you don't like the fifty-kopeck piece, replace it with the nice Nikon AF-S 28-70mm 1: 2.8D. After all, it's a shame that the lens has a motor, but the lens won't work with the D3400.
Leading a dishonest game, Arkady: firstly, how many lenses of this kind do you name? And secondly, you know 100 times better than me that the Nikon AF-S 28-70mm 1: 2.8D on the D3400 has absolutely nothing to do, according to several criteria.
Regarding the system, everything is fair. I will name a couple with AF-S and NON-G. As for what you can do or not do - this is purely taste. We can say the same thing that there is also nothing to do on d100 28-70. But at one time there was even a lot to do :) Now I have a d40, I would gladly shoot on its colorful matrix on some nice lens, for example, 105 / 1.4, in this case, as a photographer, I decide that it is possible and what is not. But no luck, E-lenses are not compatible with D40.
If, in fact, I don’t use Nikon, I don’t really care, but at the same time, this note conveys some interesting information that, I’m sure, almost no one paid attention to.
This note is definitely useful. Your assessment of this fact is a subject for discussion.
From the point of view of the integrity of the system, it is also not unambiguous, on the one hand, the furious marketers have finally become insolent, doing whatever they want. On the other hand, I just admire the engineers who at one time came up with such a mega flexible system: you can do this, and that, and about the jamb ... but it endures everything, count 50 years, it still remains at the very least, but more or less relevant.
Well, in the end, if everything went well with everything, it would just be very boring, like Sonya's, probably)))
I don’t think so. Here, take a look at the previous note with d30 and 50 1.8 stm, everything is very nice and concise.
Really sorry. Budget models were still taken not only by beginners, shooting whales in auto mode. The D3300 / D3400 has a good picture and working ISO, high speed, high-quality display, a well-rubberized handle, and at the same time, the cameras are small and light. In short, with the D3300 you can get a lot, grow for a while without changing the camera. And to hang 50D on it was not a problem, especially for the exact hit on a fully open well-implemented Live View. And I was holding both (D1,4 and D3300) in my hands, but honestly, I didn’t pay attention to the lack of a lever, I noticed a change in the software, the button, some more little things, and here it’s not so little.
Only beginners and only in auto mode. The rest are usually from poor countries. But the manufacturer is not obliged to look up to those.
Are there figures for such iron applications?
Do you have numbers that can refute this?
There are many friends who have a pair of cameras - one advanced, the second just a simple crop. For different needs, for different reasons, but this is not uncommon. With good optics and skills, the staff is excellent.
It seems that due to the fact that the market of compact and entry-level DSLRs is being crowded with smartphones, eminent brands of photographic equipment will be equal to the market of advanced and professional photo equipment.
And this is correct and logical.
What we are seeing now is an attempt to hold on to the market with all its might, but it's like floundering, bogged down in a swamp, there is no result, only you will be exhausted. And the result is one.
As for beginners / professional and cameras of the D3x00 series.
Once upon a time I read a fascinating article by a Western photographer who loved the D800E very much. He shot animals, professionally engaged in photo hunting. High resolution, top-end lenses like 600/4 + teleconverter, all things. So that photographer was incredibly happy about the release of the cropped d3200 with 24 megapixels. He motivated this by the fact that there are no other crop (there were apparently no other Nikon crop with that resolution at that time) that would have 24mp on board. And with one 600/4 and a crop factor of 1,5x, his shots were better than the d800e + 600/4 + 1.4x converter. It was very important for him to reach out at the expense of the crop factor and have a reserve for the resolution.
Here's a story about real pros and budget cameras.
I don't even know what to say to this ... not that I questioned this story, but ... But what about prof. control? Rate of fire? 2 cards? Good autofocus? Weatherproof after all? Does this all together really matter less than 23% higher resolution than the D800E?
It is already necessary to ask him.
On the crop d800e, the DX mode gives 16mp versus 24mp for the d3200, it seems to be a third, and not a quarter less. And the rate of fire of the d800e in the normal mode is 4 fps, like the d3200.
Well, everything is correct - a third less megapixels, and the linear resolution (which is actually objective) is ~ 23% less.
About the low rate of fire and the D800, I forgot, yes. My bad)
you can still recall 12 bit color in d3200 and 14 bit in d800e, but that wildlife photographer seems to care
If we recall the chronology of the release of cameras, then the D3200 at that time was the only crop with such a resolution. Plus a screen and a processor like the D800, a good buffer - why is it bad? If you compare the D3100 and D3200, the difference is huge, the D3400 is more like a step back to the D3100. It's strange why, along with the selected external microphone, the screen was not taken away - they would have saved a little more))
Canon and Nikon have recently been the authors of misunderstandings, not great cameras.
Well, it's too much. Nikon, in the profile line, everything is fine. Especially d850. But castration in the d7500, personally upsets me greatly. While the market has d7100-d7200, it seems to be okay, but when will it end? Let's see what roll out with mirrorless.
I can’t even tell you how much I don’t care. Anyway, no one is old, no one puts ring lenses on Dxxxx: either they cannot focus manually, or they think that paying money for old lenses when they have a REAL GELIK is stupid.
Have you returned to Nikon with Fujifilm again? If not, then there should be no care in the square. Or is my memory failing me?
So would pass by without clogging up comments.
"I came here to say how much I care" :)
They just need to sell AF-S optics. D3400 is generally the most stripped out. matrix cleaning removed. more profitable used d3200. and d3100 in general the whole Avito is littered))) keono went even further and made a plastic button.
18-55 normal lens, why take soapy motor junk?
Just for the sake of interest, indicate at least one “soap motor junk” such as AF-S or AF-I, which the D3400 lost?
I meant motorless lenses of course, which require a motor in the carcass)
the only weird thing is that the D3400 is not cheaper than the D3300
Apparently because of the ISO.
They are on the same matrix, it is unlikely that ISO will noticeably differ there.
They are already different. You just don’t need to confuse the numbers that appear in the camera menu, and which have different and real camera features. We all know that the matrix is the same, and the vast majority of users see an increase in the maximum base ISO by one step (12.800 against 25.600).
It’s clear what you mean. But I do not exclude that for the D3400, the declared 25 implemented hardware amplification (therefore, they remained basic), when for the D600 it was a software method (advanced). In any case, the real working ISO for both cameras will be close and not exceed 3300 for a more or less clean picture.
Most likely there is not even hardware. Just ISO HI1 (equivalent to 25.600) from the D3300 just became the ISO 25.600 of the D3400, maybe only the noise canceling algorithms were twisted. I could be wrong.
It seems to me that I remember that the D3400 has a different plug on the left - there, in my opinion, they removed the jack of the wired remote control and the input of the external microphone (this is with an emphasis on new video capabilities), but a BT transmitter was placed in the body.
I in the review d3400 everything that is cut down is indicated :)
I recall a joke:
at the bazaar a man asks his grandmother, how much is she selling a rooster? - 50 thousand
- is he special?
- no, like everyone else
- why is it so expensive?
- so money is very necessary
It's also an interesting observation, when the D40 came out for less than 500 bucks in a whale and there was a nikkor 18-200VR for 1000 bucks, everyone scolded the D40 they say you need to buy expensive motor lenses. And people wrote: yes, no one in their right mind would screw expensive lenses onto a camera “for housewives”. And now I use D50 + 18-200Vr constantly on trips, I really like it. Why am I? What seems illogical now, like the D3400 with a D-lens, could have been a normal situation later if Nikon hadn't cut off this feature. But it can also be understood, dragging along a mountain of old junk in the form of compatibility is always impossible. In their place, I would create a new mount, on which you can create a 50mm 1.2 (or 0,9) with an electronic diaphragm, motor, stub and new features.
The new bayonet mount and other features that you want are more logical to expect in Nikon's mirrorless mirrors. Here I fully support you. :)
Yes, you're right, after the D600 I will only buy a mirrorless mirror when the focus is finished. I hope they will make an adapter so that the AF-P lenses work at least normally)) Just once you have to change your horse to a car)
Why do we need 50 / 1.2 when there are 50 / 1.4 as many as two different things?
Had both, one soapy until 2.8, the other slow. I left the first one because speed is more important to me. 58mm 1.4 did not try - a little expensive. I would like 1.2, the aperture margin and at F2 will be sharp as a razor))
Sharpness depends solely on the design. You can make everything super-sharp at 1.4, only the price tag will unpleasantly surprise you. If 58 / 1.4 is “expensive” for you (by the way, rather soft on the open) - then about the hypothetical Nikon AF-S Nikkor N 50 / 1.2E VR - you don't even need to stutter at all, it will be completely unbearable, why do you need it?
Aperture margin - don't be funny, 1/3 stop - you will never feel the difference even if you compare dozens of frames in pairs.
“In their place, I would create a new mount, on which you can create a 50mm 1.2 (or 0,9) with an electronic diaphragm, motor, stub and new features.”
Here at Canon, too, thought so in 1987, and did it. And Nikon thought about compatibility with old lenses.
The d200-d300 (s) series seems to have found a continuation in the face of the D500.
The D500 camera is not cheap and is needed only by reporters, perhaps only the D750 is more or less balanced because the full frame has already become available in this price category. And also it is worth considering the moment that screwdriver optics poorly resolves 24 megapixel sensors.
Is all of the screwdriver optics really poorly resolving 24 megapixels?
And many people use it and do not know it ...
But the screwdrivers, however, work perfectly at minus 15-17 degrees with an icy wind, while for any motor lenses after an hour of walking it’s already getting dumb.
For the sake of interest, name at least one native AF-type lens, even the most miserable, type 28-80, which on F / 8 will show unacceptable image quality?
In your reviews there have been such lenses especially Sigma, Tokina, Tamron. Low contrast, poor detail, etc. And the old cheap fixes also have nuts in the bokeh. At Kenon, USM engines were installed in the 90s, and the af speed there is sometimes better, but the soap is terrible. At the UPC all modern optics there are no such jambs.
In the same way you can buy modern optics at the ZK. Unlike the UPC, with their schemes optimized for a short focal length, the optics for the ZK went through more than one iteration in its development and was refined to the amazing state that we now have. Also, UPC lenses are different. A classic example is fifty dollars Sony FE 1.8 / 50, the old double-gaus scheme, is long, the diaphragm is the same with nuts with price tags from 50 / 1.4.
I have nothing against the BZK, but as in every case - there are many features, it is difficult to fit everything under one ruler, and you don't need to do this.
But there are inaccessible, but very good models, why else dump somewhere?
A photographer from God, just in terms of affordability (both in terms of price and in terms of choice), Nikon and Canon are ahead of the competition. Try to get a good set of cameras, optics, flashes, etc. on any other system and you will understand that Nikon and Kenon give very inexpensive and diverse solutions. Count a good set on Fujah, go broke. Mikra 4/3 has excellent lenses, but the price tag for these good lenses is by no means the most humane, even for heavily used ones. And here you can build a system for almost any task and any wallet.
I support! Nikon, in particular, has a very successful D7100-7200 segment.
I had a period when the technique was 100 thousand, not top, namely the middle segment, which everyone praises so much, fixes 50 1.4, 85 1.8, etc. half of the frames are out of focus, soap, etc., The service is tested at f 5.6 and they say that everything is OK. But acquaintances who are richer abandoned their native optics in favor of Sigma art. And many people take Yungnuo flashes because they are like a child ... So I played enough with DSLRs in full.
Autofocus will not work with these lenses in the D3400, although there is a focusing motor in the lenses themselves:
Trouble, trouble, just chagrin. Especially considering that in your reviews you do not directly recommend (except for 80-200) these glasses to work with crop cameras, and primarily because of the unsuitable focal and available dx alternatives, which are also much more sane for the price. And with the rest of the list of fixes, it’s like being upset that you cannot put nozzles from an industrial mixer from a bakery on an ordinary home food processor, each of which is 10 times more expensive than itself and 5 times larger in size.
I am not even saying that most photographers are not even aware of the existence of these lenses, and those that know - have never even held it in their hands.
Let's say you, Arkady, thousands (if not tens of thousands) lenses have passed through your hands - have you ever dealt with one of the fixes from the list above?
Yes, but the review of AF-S 300 / 4D was never mastered. Actually no more than 1000 different lenses passed through my hands. The list was prepared more for historical and reference purposes, I think many users really did not know about some lenses. As for the expediency of using such lenses on the d3400 - this is the decision of every photographer and this does not negate the loss of compatibility in the system. Also look, I described the story of one photographer here above.
Well, do not forget about all the other Non-G lenses, albeit without a motor.
It’s stupid to start buying the first camera with the top carcass. Most start with younger models. And it’s very sad that in the race for marketing and terrible competition with phones, they’ll cut a penny function.
And what is the point of the comment? What, aren't the younger models in their current form suitable for this? Not to mention that the statement itself is controversial.
And if you take into account the widespread opinion that you need to learn to photograph in completely manual modes and without autofocus, it turns out that there is nothing sad at all, but just the opposite.
Yes, with this "castration" everything is simple. The diaphragm rheostat, the “screwdriver” focusing motor, and some other small zyuzulinka - all this on a single scale costs a penny, but in the scale of large-scale production of cameras it grows into large sums of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars.
Most D3x00s start and end their lives on an Avito or a pantry shelf with a whale 18-55. What are the long focus fixes ??? Friends have had D3 for 3200 years already, when I try to tell them about PSAM modes or about a histogram they look at me as if I’m giving a lecture on quantum physics (which I really don’t know myself)))) DSLRs have been at home for 12 years, first D50, then D5200 .. well on the D5200 we made the “Auto without flash” mode, otherwise on the D50 the flash was clamped with a finger in the “Auto” mode.
So Nikon simply removes the functions unnecessary for 99% of users, reducing production costs.
It’s clear that it just cleans. This fact is precisely stated in the topic. Even if you agree that a significant number of younger Nikons start and end with a whale, there are still users who want to try something else besides the whale. Since the owners of the younger carcasses are not ready to pay a lot, this turns out to be something of a different kind of helios and industries, or the cheapest 50 1,8D. And here Nikon is now all very bad. Younger olympus or panasonic systems with third-party lenses measure exposure, support ttl for native flashes with them, make it easier to shoot with manual focus (no dancing with the mirror after contrast focus with magnification). Nikon, for measuring exposure with manuals and full compatibility with D-shkami (exposure + motor), you must immediately take D7200. And when the D7200 is removed, then the D500 or the full frame. Obviously, this is not a plus for the system.
To “try something new” the remaining compatibility is enough. Since there is no autofocus anyway, why not use the knobs to rotate the exposure too?
I will repeat - for “try” it will do. Shoot a wedding at 50 / 1.8D - yes, it won't work)))
I disagree. Buy, thinking that they will shoot. In fact, it often flies to the shelf, often precisely because of the stripped-down functionality that makes the work both slow and inconvenient. It was one thing on the UPC to twist the focus with the handles in the enlarged or picking mode and get a completely valid frame in 3-5 seconds, and another thing with manual exposure and manual focus. Mirror Live View is even worse. Nikon is not only worse than other competing systems adapted to manual, third-party and even partially native optics, but also continues to move in this direction. There are pluses, there are minuses. This case is negative. Just a statement of fact, no drama.
but on Sony a7m2 I’m living quite well ..
oh yes, goodbye nikon, go in peace for the pentax.
No fools sit in Nikon; they understand that if you make a camera with all the necessary nishtyak (either a pro or an amateur one - each category has its own set of functions), then other cameras will simply stop buying ... So they release a similar, stripped-down, flawed-castrated, but quite suitable for a certain target audience. If you want more - buy another model. It's just business.
Well, the same “competitor” has full compatibility inside the mount, Pentax does not cut the mount either. And then it turns out: I buy a NEW Nikon lens for a Nikon camera, but it does not work ... It's sad and bad.
There who wrote that everyone would be dumped from Nikon. So - I answer - I will not dump! Taking into account the set of lenses (Nikonov, Soviet and third-party manufacturers) and the fact that photography for me is not a living, but a pleasure. If my D5100 dies, I'll buy something similar starting with D80 or D90 and ending with d7100 or d7200. What's the paranoia? Why is this arms race needed?
Everyone is looking for the holy grail. But he is not in photography, so the search will be eternal.
How can it be "selected"? The carcass is not new, optics, too, has no connection with the world space ... What I didn’t understand fool here?
In 2006, the Nikon D40 model lacked a built-in focusing motor. In 2016 Nikon D3400 (the newest model in this lineup) was deprived of the EE lever. What you have not understood - nobody knows.
I even thought that it was taken away from d40)) damn stupid nepedetski
Although I still didn’t understand, a bunch of d40s with an exposure meter and (or) a motor walk around the world, what will happen with the motor and without? Or only later models? All the same, for those who are not a nikonist, it’s not clear
In this article, information about the Nikon D40 is historical reference. The note itself about the Nikon D3400 and the loss of compatibility with optics, which has an aperture control ring.
How can it be “taken away”? The carcass is not new, the optics, too, has no connection with the world space ... What am I a fool did not understand here?
Well, they removed and removed, there is a good 3200 and an excellent 3300, but this model can be ignored.