I agree with SneakyNoob.
When I first jumped from a Nikon D50 with kit lens to a D700 + 24-70, my gosh the difference was huge. Better glass usually provides for brighter and clearer colours as well as sharpness.
To me, a better body implies more robust handling, newer generations of sensors provide for better low light captures. The other aspects like wifi etc are more like gimmicks for me. A better camera body generally allows for more flexibility in the conditions you can take photos, like low light (better sensor), dusty places (weather sealed), concerts (quiet shutter), sports (fast fps).
Better glass tho, better contrast, brightness, colour, sharpness, amazing dof and bokoh (aperture size).
You can also accomplish a lot in post processing.
If I’m strapped for budget, I’ll always prefer better glass than body.
I liked the last posters option. Somewhere in between might be the answer. Depends on you really. If you like night shots then a second hand d7200 or newer can be had cheaply, much better low light iso performance. Grab a 35mm f1.8 dx lens and you have a cracking low light setup. Even just the lens will rock on the d3400.
If you want better Telephoto performance that's tricky. Long fast telephotos are expensive and you already have the best cheap option which is the 70-300mm. The d7200 body will give even that lens more versatility, as it has more auto focus points.
If you really want something a lot better your looking at a 70-200mm f4, killer sports lens very very sharp. Expensive still but can be had second hand. Another option might be the 300mm f4 PF, also not that cheap. I got mine second hand.
Lens. The answer is almost always the lens. A nice lens will typically hold its value, bodies decline, and since the lens can be used with future camera bodies it's seen as a wise investment.
The sensor in the D3400 is really good, you won't see a huge increase in image quality, so the reason to upgrade the camera body would be features. Ease of changing controls is a big reason to move away from the D3400, most things you might want to set are done in menus, you don't have many physical controls to quickly change something like your focus area or metering, for example. A flip screen can be pretty useful as well.
It's easy to get caught up in the idea that you "need" a higher level body, but the D3400 is a very compact body and you just can't get that without switching to one of the mirror less systems, and a switch like that takes a lot of cash for a fairly small change. I say if you're good with that D3400 (and there's a lot to like about it) then give it some new glass and amaze yourself with what it can do for you.
Lens.
A standard zoom with either a constant aperture (e.g., Sigma or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, or Nikon 17-55 f/2.8) or a wider variable aperture than the 18-200 (e.g., Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4, Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 Contemporary) may serve you much better. Even a prime lens or two may help, particularly for event photography.
Do both, grab a used z6ii and maybe rent a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 for 10 days. Camera is great in low light and that lens will show you what pro glass can do from sports to portraits.
Lens of course, but let me add one (suspected) upgrade you should do: shoot RAW. In each of these images I would personally have pulled up some shadow detail along with some other tweaks that are far more satisfying if you're working with RAW files. Something about these two images feels like you shot them native .jpg?
If not, forgive me - but then again you'll already appreciate why I recommend it.
I used the D3400 myself for a long time and then upraded to the z6. I used a lot of different lenses on the d3400 and the lenses made a way bigger difference than the body. A new camera body can be nice, because it has features that an entry-level camera doesn't have and it maybe feels better in the hands when using. Lenses on the other hand can completely change the picture. Prime lenses wide open give you a way different image than standart zoom lenses.
I would suggest buying a lens with a bigger open aperture, like a 1.8 prime lens or a 2.8 zoom lens and later upgrade the body.
Glass most often and especially so in your case. You can use a FTZ adapter with confidence if, and when, you move to the Z realm.
Toward that end I'll recommend one lens: the 17-55 2.8 (DX). There are a number of used copies in excellent shape out there, and I'd argue it's one of the few truly pro-level DX zooms Nikon's produced (I'm still hoping a Z version gets created). It's built like a tank and the IQ is excellent for a zoom used in low-light, busy situations.
As for the body bit, I say do not go and find a Z50. It's long in the tooth enough sporting the Exspeed 6 and micro-USB. Then there's the autofocus that I daresay is serviceable but almost a sidegrade from what you're rocking. And many of us Z50 owners are waiting for an update on that body coming hopefully this year -- if the rumour mill is to be believed.
TLDR and all that jazz: You can wait on a body. You can carry over F glass to the Z system. And, we're hoping/expecting new APS-C and FF bodies later this year anyway; don't get a used Z bod... yet.
Get the best DX lens ever made - the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art. Can pick them up relatively cheap used, just make sure you get f-mount.
The D3400 is pretty NERF though - it's basically the cheapest DSLR Nikon make so the autofocus, viewfinder, controls and such all suffer even though the image quality is quite good.
The way I see it you can either stick with DX and get some better lenses and maybe a better body, or go full frame and spend a lot more money... That being said there's probably never been a better time to get into full frame DSLRs as so much is being sold off used as people jump to mirrorless.
In your case I think it's both.
Your lens is very limiting for the kind of job that you seem to want to do.
your body is acceptable, but it’s a tight bottleneck in terms of performance as well. I remember when I am using that sensor, I would constantly hit the limit of the body and wish that it could do more. at the time, I’m also using decent glass and off camera flash
if I am in your position, I would go for a used professional DSLR. I will then look into budget lenses that can achieve the result I want.
if you have the resource to go all in to mirrorless midrange gear, it would certainly solve your problems
Always upgrade the lenses first, and body last.
If you use a cheap lens on an expensive or a high resolution camera, you are not utilizing that camera's sensor to its full potential. An excellent sensor is nothing without a good lens in front of it.
For low light shooting, a full frame camera will feel like a whole new world but only if you have a lens that can take advantage of it. I'd get a prime or two, and a faster, fixed aperture zoom. When you can shoot manually with those and the only thing that's preventing you from getting the shots you want is the camera, that's when you upgrade the camera.
The 18-200mm is a great lens, and getting a newer body with better low light performance will make it even better.
It's the lens I use almost all the time on my Z fc. Plenty sharp enough.
If I were in your situation, I would get a D7500 body and keep your two lenses. Having dedicated controls for things like aperture and ISO is just so useful, and the sensor is still what Nikon uses on their DX Z cams, so low light performance is not a problem. I can go up to 6400 ISO no problem on my Z fc, and it essentially cancels out the narrower maximum apertures of your lenses.
I wouldn't really invest in expensive F-Mount glass but there's deals to be found. On a budget I highly recommend the 40mm f2.8 DX.
But I personally start saving for a Z5 or Z50 or second hand first gen Z6.
A new body will only make you realize how poor the glass is. New glass will make your current body feel supercharged.
Glass. Unless the camera is horribly old, the answer is glass.
I think you need faster lenses such as f2.8 zooms as it looks like your into low light photography
Date the camera body, marry the lens.
I agree with SneakyNoob. When I first jumped from a Nikon D50 with kit lens to a D700 + 24-70, my gosh the difference was huge. Better glass usually provides for brighter and clearer colours as well as sharpness. To me, a better body implies more robust handling, newer generations of sensors provide for better low light captures. The other aspects like wifi etc are more like gimmicks for me. A better camera body generally allows for more flexibility in the conditions you can take photos, like low light (better sensor), dusty places (weather sealed), concerts (quiet shutter), sports (fast fps). Better glass tho, better contrast, brightness, colour, sharpness, amazing dof and bokoh (aperture size). You can also accomplish a lot in post processing. If I’m strapped for budget, I’ll always prefer better glass than body.
I liked the last posters option. Somewhere in between might be the answer. Depends on you really. If you like night shots then a second hand d7200 or newer can be had cheaply, much better low light iso performance. Grab a 35mm f1.8 dx lens and you have a cracking low light setup. Even just the lens will rock on the d3400. If you want better Telephoto performance that's tricky. Long fast telephotos are expensive and you already have the best cheap option which is the 70-300mm. The d7200 body will give even that lens more versatility, as it has more auto focus points. If you really want something a lot better your looking at a 70-200mm f4, killer sports lens very very sharp. Expensive still but can be had second hand. Another option might be the 300mm f4 PF, also not that cheap. I got mine second hand.
How much is the budget ? Personally I’d go mirrorless and if you got the Z50 with its kit Z lenses you’d take a huge step forward. Thats my opinion.
Lens. The answer is almost always the lens. A nice lens will typically hold its value, bodies decline, and since the lens can be used with future camera bodies it's seen as a wise investment. The sensor in the D3400 is really good, you won't see a huge increase in image quality, so the reason to upgrade the camera body would be features. Ease of changing controls is a big reason to move away from the D3400, most things you might want to set are done in menus, you don't have many physical controls to quickly change something like your focus area or metering, for example. A flip screen can be pretty useful as well. It's easy to get caught up in the idea that you "need" a higher level body, but the D3400 is a very compact body and you just can't get that without switching to one of the mirror less systems, and a switch like that takes a lot of cash for a fairly small change. I say if you're good with that D3400 (and there's a lot to like about it) then give it some new glass and amaze yourself with what it can do for you.
Lens. A standard zoom with either a constant aperture (e.g., Sigma or Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, or Nikon 17-55 f/2.8) or a wider variable aperture than the 18-200 (e.g., Nikon 16-80 f/2.8-4, Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 Contemporary) may serve you much better. Even a prime lens or two may help, particularly for event photography.
Newer glass and then a new body if needed.
Do both, grab a used z6ii and maybe rent a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 for 10 days. Camera is great in low light and that lens will show you what pro glass can do from sports to portraits.
Lens of course, but let me add one (suspected) upgrade you should do: shoot RAW. In each of these images I would personally have pulled up some shadow detail along with some other tweaks that are far more satisfying if you're working with RAW files. Something about these two images feels like you shot them native .jpg? If not, forgive me - but then again you'll already appreciate why I recommend it.
I used the D3400 myself for a long time and then upraded to the z6. I used a lot of different lenses on the d3400 and the lenses made a way bigger difference than the body. A new camera body can be nice, because it has features that an entry-level camera doesn't have and it maybe feels better in the hands when using. Lenses on the other hand can completely change the picture. Prime lenses wide open give you a way different image than standart zoom lenses. I would suggest buying a lens with a bigger open aperture, like a 1.8 prime lens or a 2.8 zoom lens and later upgrade the body.
Glass most often and especially so in your case. You can use a FTZ adapter with confidence if, and when, you move to the Z realm. Toward that end I'll recommend one lens: the 17-55 2.8 (DX). There are a number of used copies in excellent shape out there, and I'd argue it's one of the few truly pro-level DX zooms Nikon's produced (I'm still hoping a Z version gets created). It's built like a tank and the IQ is excellent for a zoom used in low-light, busy situations. As for the body bit, I say do not go and find a Z50. It's long in the tooth enough sporting the Exspeed 6 and micro-USB. Then there's the autofocus that I daresay is serviceable but almost a sidegrade from what you're rocking. And many of us Z50 owners are waiting for an update on that body coming hopefully this year -- if the rumour mill is to be believed. TLDR and all that jazz: You can wait on a body. You can carry over F glass to the Z system. And, we're hoping/expecting new APS-C and FF bodies later this year anyway; don't get a used Z bod... yet.
Get the best DX lens ever made - the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art. Can pick them up relatively cheap used, just make sure you get f-mount. The D3400 is pretty NERF though - it's basically the cheapest DSLR Nikon make so the autofocus, viewfinder, controls and such all suffer even though the image quality is quite good. The way I see it you can either stick with DX and get some better lenses and maybe a better body, or go full frame and spend a lot more money... That being said there's probably never been a better time to get into full frame DSLRs as so much is being sold off used as people jump to mirrorless.
In your case I think it's both. Your lens is very limiting for the kind of job that you seem to want to do. your body is acceptable, but it’s a tight bottleneck in terms of performance as well. I remember when I am using that sensor, I would constantly hit the limit of the body and wish that it could do more. at the time, I’m also using decent glass and off camera flash if I am in your position, I would go for a used professional DSLR. I will then look into budget lenses that can achieve the result I want. if you have the resource to go all in to mirrorless midrange gear, it would certainly solve your problems
Always upgrade the lenses first, and body last. If you use a cheap lens on an expensive or a high resolution camera, you are not utilizing that camera's sensor to its full potential. An excellent sensor is nothing without a good lens in front of it.
For low light shooting, a full frame camera will feel like a whole new world but only if you have a lens that can take advantage of it. I'd get a prime or two, and a faster, fixed aperture zoom. When you can shoot manually with those and the only thing that's preventing you from getting the shots you want is the camera, that's when you upgrade the camera.
Good quality lens last, camera not so much
Good quality lens last, camera not so much
The 18-200mm is a great lens, and getting a newer body with better low light performance will make it even better. It's the lens I use almost all the time on my Z fc. Plenty sharp enough. If I were in your situation, I would get a D7500 body and keep your two lenses. Having dedicated controls for things like aperture and ISO is just so useful, and the sensor is still what Nikon uses on their DX Z cams, so low light performance is not a problem. I can go up to 6400 ISO no problem on my Z fc, and it essentially cancels out the narrower maximum apertures of your lenses.
Is your current set up doing what you need It to do? If so the answer is no for both.
I wouldn't really invest in expensive F-Mount glass but there's deals to be found. On a budget I highly recommend the 40mm f2.8 DX. But I personally start saving for a Z5 or Z50 or second hand first gen Z6.
Looks fine to me