Which DSLR for boating pics?

oceanfroggie

oceanfroggie

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Aug 2006
Messages
9,877
Location
EU27
www.derg.ie
Thinking of an SLR upgrade. Wavering between D7100 and D300s both DX. What do the panel use and recommend for use on the boat?
 
Smaller, lighter body, better LCD and more pixels if you need them, makes the D7100 attractive to me.
D300s might be a bit more robust if you insist on throwing your cameras into the bilge.
 
Solitaire said:
I have the D300s. I love it!
Click to expand...

Thanks guys. Ideally I'd like a D300s body reduced to the size of a D3200, with the D7100 sensor, but the D300s frame rate and buffer size. Dream on methinks! :) I love the feel and control layout on the D300s body but it seems just a little heavy for a DX body. I'll see if anything is announced at CES tomorrow. Solitaire, How do you find the weight of your D300s on board?
 
oceanfroggie said:
Solitaire, How do you find the weight of your D300s on board?
Click to expand...

To be honest I find the weight a benefit . Most of the time I shoot with a 70-300 zoom lens attached. The weight gives me more stability and I will post some pic I took while single handing on the rib, I have never found the weight a problem more a benefit. Depends what you want; I also use a Pentax Optio which is great, but ok for quick shots but the 300 for serious suff every time.
 
oceanfroggie said:
Solitaire, How do you find the weight of your D300s on board?
Click to expand...

Here are some examples that I took with my D300s with the 70-300 zoom. I was on-board my rib.

RedArrowssingle_1a.jpg


34-DSC_0670.jpg


01-DSC_0384.jpg


null_zps3a4d6882.jpg


DSC_0171-1.jpg
 
Super shots from a moving rib. Love the diamond formation shot.

Agree 12mp is more than enough. Most consumer lens optics are not upto insane 24mp and 36mp.
 
oceanfroggie said:
Super shots from a moving rib. Love the diamond formation shot.

Agree 12mp is more than enough. Most consumer lens optics are not upto insane 24mp and 36mp.
Click to expand...

The 70-300 is actually 105-450 in DX format. But I do want to add the new FX format D800 - but funds don't allow it at the moment. But the lens will cope!
 
If you want the d800, you need to be perfect in your use of it...
I have one, its awesome.... Buy a tripod.... Then buy the pro glass.... Its stunning...
I would recomend you learn to use it thoroughly... It shows every mistake in your technique and amplifies your tenfold when you get it wrong....
The d700 is stunning. This blew me away....
Then spend 2k on a mac and 32gig of ram.... The files are enormous when open. Proper medium format territory...
 
Robg71 said:
If you want the d800, you need to be perfect in your use of it...
I have one, its awesome.... Buy a tripod.... Then buy the pro glass.... Its stunning...
I would recomend you learn to use it thoroughly... It shows every mistake in your technique and amplifies your tenfold when you get it wrong....
The d700 is stunning. This blew me away....
Then spend 2k on a mac and 32gig of ram.... The files are enormous when open. Proper medium format territory...
Click to expand...

I like a challenge! I started with Minolta, then went to Pentax AX. Digital came in and I had early ones. The went to the 300S. I really want to go back to full frame 35mm. But still a lot of money at the moment.
 
Any opinions on the rangefinder style mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lens and large(ish) APS or Four Thirds sensor?

Aimed at a different market but has benefits and seem to produce high quality results.
 
If you have a DSLR and then buy something like a Fuji X1Pro, you may end up using it more! it is lighter and less bulky to carry, and has a good selection of prime lenses (with a recently added zoom). the results are outstanding. I'm at PMA /CES at the moment and although I haven't checked out Nikon, details of everything they are exhibiting were released in the UK a few weeks ago.
 
Thanks guys. I'm not really keen on FX (full frame sensors). Was there 30 years ago with film. Today it seems a technologically retrograde step back to heavy bulky bodies when everything around us is getting more compact and especially lighter. I appreciate there are limits due to feel in hand, balance, etc. However many of today's point and shoots, and compact bridge super zooms better many of the big DSLRs of 6-8 years ago by some margin (ie for family photography and amateur hobbiests). I like the DX format for its size, weight and results. IMHO Canon and Nikon are equals in this area and excel. I've tried out a few mirrirless, but for now I still prefer an OVF (optical view finder).

My ideal spec is a D300s body weighing 750g with the sensor from the D7100 and frame rate of D300s. I'll dream on. :)
 
Last edited:
Camelia said:
That depends on what you do with your pictures. Fine for displaying on screen, but if you want to print them out at any size you really need 36mp.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, not so sure. I think camera manufacturer's marketing has done well to sell the myth more mega pixels are necessary to the mass consumer market. Not so long ago I've had full size roll up banners printed with only 5mp images and nobody noticed. The user thought it was from an 6-8mp camera which was the benchmark back then. It was a particularly appropriate marine landscape image taken by a lowly compact bridge but in excellent light conditions. The quality of the sensor and image processor seems half the battle with nice images. On my current camera which is 24mp I have it stepped down to 13mp for file handling convenience. A good printer is IMHO more essential for producing big quality prints than image size.
 
From the question I gather that you already have Nikon gear so not changing to Canon, etc. but FWIW, you can pick up Canon 5D MK II's for a fair price since the introduction of the MK III. MK II is still a fine camera although the autofocus is probably as good as on the newer models.

On a general note, with the bulk comes robustness which is good on the boating environment. At least in the Canon world, the cheaper ones are plastic and aren't as well protected from spray, etc. Also imho nicest pictures come when there is interesting light (=dark) and that's when the full frame really comes into it's own.
 
Camelia said:
That depends on what you do with your pictures. Fine for displaying on screen, but if you want to print them out at any size you really need 36mp.
Click to expand...

What tosh! :)

Sorry, I've had a crop from a Canon 1DSmki (11mpx) at the back of a boatshow stand which was 3m x 2m at normal viewing distance it looked great.
If you're looking at it from 6 inches away it looked pants, but at 6 inches you couldn't see the whole image...ever looked closely at a billboard? Exactly :)

I currently use a 18 mpx 1dx (and a 5dmkIII), look on the cover of this months MBM if you want to see how that prints ;) ...Have a look at it on the IPC Boatshow stand if you want to see it bigger

Also I get 12 fps

princess43.gif


I've photographed a boat or two in my time :) http://grahamsnook.com
 
Last edited:
snooks said:
What tosh! :)
Click to expand...
Well you are using a Cannon so I would expect a bit better :)

Are they all full frame sensors?

P.S. Can you slow that movie down a wee bit, I am getting motion sickness with it ;)

Out of interest where was it shot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

Rascal Joe
Real Time Conditions and more for Apple users
Replies
0
Views
487
Rascal Joe
Rascal Joe
D
Solar Panel wiring question
Replies
3
Views
218
William_H
W
O
South Coast - Cheap boating option
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
3K
Chiara’s slave
Chiara’s slave

Share this page

Top