Going to Alaska in 4 Weeks. What Camera Should I Get?

[Dick Whitman]

This does suggest that a DSLR is what you need to get the type of image you want. That is perhaps somewhat more true of shooting in Alaska than other places...

Some significant advantages of the D7100 over a D5300 are the weather sealing, the longer battery life, more cross points for AF, and 2 memory cards. Of even greater importance is the pentaprism viewfinder vs a pentamirror. And possibly in the long run the built in focus motor which allows you to use certain older AF-D lenses as well as the modern AF-S lenses.

That adds up to the D7100 being significantly better for what you are apparently intending to do than virtually any other non-full frame DSLR on the market.



This indicates you are interested in landscapes and general protography, but not particularly in wildlife? If wildlife is in fact of interest, take a very hard look at the new Tarmron 15-600mm lens. And that is true for those with Canon cameras too, because while the Canon 100-400mm is nice lens, it just isn't the same as a 600mm lens.

Personally I would not really consider using the 18-140mm. The zoom range is too high. The 24-120mm f/4 is a fairly good lens, and with one of the other wide angle lenses for landscapes it would serve well as a walkaround general purpose lens.

For renting, as far as I know Stewarts Photo in Anchorage is the only "local" store that has rentals. Google them to get a phone number and their webpage, and check to see what they have.

I think because I am one who is often susceptible to buyer's remorse, I will feel somewhat guilty about whichever decision I make. But I think I will feel worse about potentially missing out on features in the D7100, which is why I may ultimately go it over the D5300. Why can't Apple just make a DSLR?

Anyway, yes I am primarily interested in landscape and general photography. Wildlife interests me somewhat but not as much. I would definitely have to rent both of the lenses you recommended as they are each over $1,000. I'm actually just thinking about renting a Sigma 10-20mm or Tokina 11-16mm, rather than buying them outright, as I'm not sure how much I would use them once I'm back home. I think the 18-140mm is a good general purpose lens, especially just starting out. The zoom range isn't as drastic as that of the 18-200mm or the 55-300mm.

Also, I see from your location that you're from Alaska! Nice website too! Have you been to Anchorage? I am very excited about visiting the Girdwood and seeing Matanuska Glacier.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Thanks for the info. I plan on taking my iPhone 5s, a Go Pro HERO3+ (which a friend is lending to me), and my new DSLR. You're definitely right in that I will most likely be doing a lot of, if not all, shooting on auto. Really I just need to the order the damn camera. I'm four weeks away from leaving and am still thinking and debating. I wonder why more people were shooting Canon when you were there. The EOS 70D does interest me for the reasons I indicated earlier, but I still want to see more comparison shots between the D7100. Also, I fully plan to take my DSLR everywhere with me (e.g. when hiking glaciers, dog sledding, helicopter tour, etc.). The only exception I think I would make is if I go kayaking.

Going with the lighter D5300 may be better for travel, especially when the image quality is identical to the D7100. I would save money, which would allow me to put more towards lenses. But I can't say there isn't a subjective, aesthetic-based, style-driven aspect of this decision, because there is. However silly, there's just something about the bigger, more menacing, more professional appearance of the D7100.

For more sample shots just go on Flickr and search by camera. However remember its the photographer who makes the photo not just the camera.
As for shooting in Auto, try and use Aperture or Shutter priority instead. Think of it as semi auto. That way you will get more control over your finished product.
Either way as I said earlier, my advice is order today. Then you will have longer to practise using it before your trip. None of the options you mention are a bad choice btw. They will probably all deliver more than you are capable of.

 

[Apaflo]

I think because I am one who is often susceptible to buyer's remorse, I will feel somewhat guilty about whichever decision I make. But I think I will feel worse about potentially missing out on features in the D7100, which is why I may ultimately go it over the D5300. Why can't Apple just make a DSLR?

Packing around unnecessary features won't degrade your images... but not having a feature when you need it will definitely affect the results. In Alaska you need the better weather proofing. You need the better viewfinder and the better AF system. Remember that "golden hour" in much of Alaska takes up several hours (or all night in Barrow), and even as a beginner you'll very likely push the limits of any camera you use.

Incidentally the reason you'll see more Canon consumer grade cameras is because Canon is a large multifaceted company driven mostly by its marketing people, who in fact do a great job of marketing products. Nikon is a relatively small company driven more by the engineering group. If you want the latest and greatest, especially as perceived from TV ads, Canon produces it. If the best systems integration is preferred, Nikon has an edge. If you are not somewhere close to being extremely capable with a camera, it just isn't going to make a lot of difference which brand you choose. Both brands produce exceptional images.

Anyway, yes I am primarily interested in landscape and general photography. Wildlife interests me somewhat but not as much. I would definitely have to rent both of the lenses you recommended as they are each over $1,000. I'm actually just thinking about renting a Sigma 10-20mm or Tokina 11-16mm, rather than buying them outright, as I'm not sure how much I would use them once I'm back home. I think the 18-140mm is a good general purpose lens, especially just starting out. The zoom range isn't as drastic as that of the 18-200mm or the 55-300mm.

Everyone has their own set of priorities. I tend to view a lens as a long term investment that pays off with better images over a period of time. I'd rather spend the extra dollars on one or two really good lenses that help me produce the specific images I really want, than have several lesser lenses that help produce images that aren't quite what really excites me. (For example, since I don't do landscapes a 24-120mm is actually the only wide angle lens I own.) You wouldn't want the various longer focal length lenses that are essential to me; but the same selection method would provide you with a similar collection of shorter focal lengths and the same ultimate satisfaction.

Also, I see from your location that you're from Alaska! Nice website too! Have you been to Anchorage? I am very excited about visiting the Girdwood and seeing Matanuska Glacier.

I try to avoid Anchorage for the most part, but except for a bush rat it definitely is a very beautiful place for a photographer! I've never been to Girdwood in the winter, which is when most people go there. In the summer it is paradise for a photographer. Whatever else you do, go to the laundry place! Order a hamburger or whatever. Before you leave, visit the restroom that is past where all the washing machines are. It's different...

One point worth mentioning, in particular because you'll be in Alaska for awhile. If you spend a lot of money to get here and then drive the highway system thinking you are seeing Alaska it is a shame. That is part of Alaska, but it is the part most similar to the Lower-48. An 800 mile drive from Anchorage to Fairbanks to Tok to Anchorage (with maybe a side trip to the Kenai) is wonderful... but it really isn't much different than driving the same distance anywhere in the Lower-48. On the other hand, get on a plane and visit Barrow, Bethel, Nome, or Kotzebue (or if you have courage, try Unalakleet, McGrath, Aniak, Anaktuvik , Point Hope or Kaktovik) and you'll see something that simply does not exist in the Lower-48. Four days in Barrow is better than four weeks on the highway system in terms of what you'll experience.

 

[fa8362]

Both cameras have pros and cons. The D5300 is smaller, lighter, has the same IQ as the D7100 but lacks weather sealing and more advanced features.

The D5300 is a little smaller and a little lighter. Other than that, there's nothing to recommend it over the D7100 for still photography. In fact, I don't even consider the D5300 a viable alternative to the D7100. It is clearly inferior operationally.

 

[Dick Whitman]

packing around unnecessary features won't degrade your images... But not having a feature when you need it will definitely affect the results. In alaska you need the better weather proofing. You need the better viewfinder and the better af system. Remember that "golden hour" in much of alaska takes up several hours (or all night in barrow), and even as a beginner you'll very likely push the limits of any camera you use.

Incidentally the reason you'll see more canon consumer grade cameras is because canon is a large multifaceted company driven mostly by its marketing people, who in fact do a great job of marketing products. Nikon is a relatively small company driven more by the engineering group. If you want the latest and greatest, especially as perceived from tv ads, canon produces it. If the best systems integration is preferred, nikon has an edge. If you are not somewhere close to being extremely capable with a camera, it just isn't going to make a lot of difference which brand you choose. Both brands produce exceptional images.

I think that's a good way of describing the differences between the two. Nikon has the technical edge while Canon is more feature rich. In watching a lot of reviews of the 70D, moire and artifacting are frequently mentioned. I'm sure these can be minimized via PS, but why even deal with them in the first place? Even without an AA filter, the D7100 supposedly does not exhibit either of these distortions. Maybe this is so miniscule that it's hard to notice, but I tend to lean towards natively better IQ.

Between both of the Nikon cameras, I'm leaning towards the D7100 since the weather-sealed and more rugged body seems better suited for Alaska (and certainly couldn't hurt back home). But I also came across a user on Instagram using the D5100 in Alaska just fine. Still, I've seen others using the D7100 there. The D5300 does have its advantages though (e.g. WiFi, Nikon's EXPEED 4 processor, a lighter body, etc.).

everyone has their own set of priorities. I tend to view a lens as a long term investment that pays off with better images over a period of time. I'd rather spend the extra dollars on one or two really good lenses that help me produce the specific images i really want, than have several lesser lenses that help produce images that aren't quite what really excites me. (for example, since i don't do landscapes a 24-120mm is actually the only wide angle lens i own.) you wouldn't want the various longer focal length lenses that are essential to me; but the same selection method would provide you with a similar collection of shorter focal lengths and the same ultimate satisfaction.

Out of the following lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.8g, Nikon 55-300mm, Sigma 10-20mm, Tokina 11-16mm), is there one you would recommend most, specifically for this trip?

i try to avoid anchorage for the most part, but except for a bush rat it definitely is a very beautiful place for a photographer! I've never been to girdwood in the winter, which is when most people go there. In the summer it is paradise for a photographer. Whatever else you do, go to the laundry place! Order a hamburger or whatever. Before you leave, visit the restroom that is past where all the washing machines are. It's different...

Haha I'll have to try and remember that.

One point worth mentioning, in particular because you'll be in alaska for awhile. If you spend a lot of money to get here and then drive the highway system thinking you are seeing alaska it is a shame. That is part of alaska, but it is the part most similar to the lower-48. An 800 mile drive from anchorage to fairbanks to tok to anchorage (with maybe a side trip to the kenai) is wonderful... But it really isn't much different than driving the same distance anywhere in the lower-48. On the other hand, get on a plane and visit barrow, bethel, nome, or kotzebue (or if you have courage, try unalakleet, mcgrath, aniak, anaktuvik , point hope or kaktovik) and you'll see something that simply does not exist in the lower-48. Four days in barrow is better than four weeks on the highway system in terms of what you'll experience.

Unfortunately we're only there for 7 days so we'll probably spend most of our time around Anchorage. We plan on doing Denali one today, but that's really going to be a hike judging by the travel time alone.

 

[Mother'sDay]

Denali you'll want more time in than just a day. You can't really make your peace with it in just one day. I wouldn't spend a week in Anchorage, just me.

I have the Tokina 11-16 and like it a lot, but it distorts. It will be fine for landscape, but again I go back to my suggestion that you get one lens (18-200 maybe), stick it on, and just use it. You're going to have a lot of funky pictures to come back and fix and wonder what in the world you were thinking if you start off as a newbie with an 11-16, lol. I run mine through LR and fix the distortion. I use it indoors in settings (family gatherings, etc.) where the 35mm is too tight, but it distorts and will make people look funky if you're not careful. I need to move up to ff.

You might see if Creative Live has a getting started class on the d7100.

 

[glenthompson]

Biggest problem you're going to have is the learning curve on any new camera unless you're already familiar with that vendor's products, menus, and operation. It took me 2 books and a lot of practice to get comfortable with my Nex-7.

I have become a huge fan of mirror less cameras, especially for travel. Much lighter and compact. Crop factor on M43 or APS-C sensor means smaller telephoto lenses. I carry my Nex with the kit lens, a 55-210, batteries, charger, and cable in a case that most FF DSLR models wouldn't fit in. When looking through the viewfinder on a DSLR, you're seeing what the lens sees. On a mirrorless you see what the sensor sees.

 

[-hh]

I think because I am one who is often susceptible to buyer's remorse, I will feel somewhat guilty about whichever decision I make...

Always true.

Anyway, yes I am primarily interested in landscape and general photography. Wildlife interests me somewhat but not as much.

I'm trying to recall what stuff I took on my only (so far) trip to Alaska, although I've had ample trips elsewhere since ... but several of these had a very strong wildlife emphasis {Tanzania}.

In general, if I had all my stuff stolen tonight and I was forced to buy all new for an AK trip next month, I think that the general direction that I'd go would be for a high quality compact camera .. a P&S or 4/3rds or Mirrorless .. to have as the pocket camera that would be handy for portraits, indoor shots, maybe even close macro stuff ... and I'd look towards it having a moderate-to-wide(ish) focal length: figure 28mm-80mm. And for what it would be used for, a zoom would be fine.

For the big outdoors, if one is going to be serious about landscape, its going to be wide angle and with a tripod ... however, if one's itinerary includes stuff like a cruise, a tripod doesn't do one all that much good when set up on the deck of a boat. Ditto for if one wants to travel relatively light ... unless one's interests do lean heavily to long exposures of waterfalls, etc. Only you know.

For wildlife, that's where telephotos of course come in and the rule of thumb that I can recall being told at the time for working with them on boats is ~300mm max effective. These days are digital, so I think that that number can be pushed some, thanks to much higher ISO's.

Mish-moshing this all together, along with my other trips' experiences, I think that for my next Alaska trip, I'd go for a pocket camera and a dSLR with two lenses - - as wide as you dare and as long as you dare ... don't worry about having a focal length gap with the dSLR (use the pocket camera for that). For example, my default "Go To" setup right now is a crop body Canon 7D with a 10-22mm and a 70-200L f/2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter - this setup gives me effective focal lengths of roughly 16-35mm & 110-450mm, although in truth, the 1.4x doesn't come off all that much, so its more like 150-450mm on the telephoto.


Finally, one brief comment on the Canon-vs-Nikon perennial debate. I made my commitment back in the 1990s without all that much insight; what I was told was that they were about equal and to choose whichever one seemed to "fit my hand" better. In learning a lot since then, one of the things that I now appreciate having Canon for is my reduced choice of lenses. And yeah, putting it this way ("less") sounds weird: when autofocus technology was developed, Canon made a clean break from their legacy lenses and made the EF (now also EF-S) lenses, whereas Nikon worked some miracles and had much better backwards compatibility.

The trade-off here is that Nikon's choice has resulted in an utterly bewildering mess of lens/body combinations where new might not work with old (even though it fits), or more accurately, will only work in fully manual mode, standing on your left foot, etc. In contrast, for Canon, if it fits, it all works.

Here's a page on lens/body compatibility for Nikon:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm


-hh

 

[compuwar]

In Alaska you need the better weather proofing.

A good rain cover is about as effective and has a lower drastic failure mode than body seals and accounts for poorly or unsealed zoom lenses as well.

Even with a weather-sealed pro body and lens, I often use a rain cover as cheap insurance.

Here's my favorite vendor:

http://www.fotosharp.com

They offer a free trial and have since the 90's when I started using them.

Paul

 

[BJMRamage]

I don't have much to offer here in guidance to a camera.

I will say this. A few years back I was looking for a new camera after my Nikon D70 began to act up on vacation. My wife pushed me into getting a new camera saying i wouldn't be happy if my camera stopped working again.

So, I looked into a few Nikon Models (I've shot with them since film) and saw the 3k, 5k and 7k models. the 3100 was not good enough. So it became a toss-up between the 5100 and 7000. I was mostly set on the D7000 as it was the "better" camera. but decided to give the 5100 a shot since it was cheaper and close to the D7k. When I held the 5100 it was definitely lighter and compact but that lightness made it feel fake. and the control knobs were "out of place"

I actually like the 'heft' of the D7000. I LOVE the dual SD card slots.

 

[Apaflo]

A good rain cover is about as effective and has a lower drastic failure mode than body seals and accounts for poorly or unsealed zoom lenses as well.

Even with a weather-sealed pro body and lens, I often use a rain cover as cheap insurance.
Paul

A rain cover is not a substitute for weather sealing. It is a useful addition and both are advisable.. But note that almost any plastic bag can serve as a rain cover. The point of the rain cover is to keep falling rain off the camera.

Weather sealing helps to prevent moisture and dirt from getting inside the camera body.

When the relative humidity is very high even a camera sitting inside a car can get moisture inside. Weather sealing is not perfect prevention, but it is probably the single most effective step one can take. (One reason I use Nikon cameras is because they have historically had the best weather sealing.)

Outdoor photography in Alaska, which includes most of what travel and tourist photography is, almost always includes risks from humidity, and often from dust and dirt. A weather sealed camera, using weather sealed lenses, carrying a plastic bag large enough to cover the camera plus lens, and equally important a water resistant case for the camera and lens collection are all important.

I use two different soft cases and two different hard cases, and choose which to use depending on whether I'm going to be in a truck, on a 4-wheel ATV or in a boat. For the 4-wheel ATV which is used depends on where I'm going and how long the trip will be, as that can range from not too challenging to about as rough as it gets.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I don't have much to offer here in guidance to a camera.

I will say this. A few years back I was looking for a new camera after my Nikon D70 began to act up on vacation. My wife pushed me into getting a new camera saying i wouldn't be happy if my camera stopped working again.

So, I looked into a few Nikon Models (I've shot with them since film) and saw the 3k, 5k and 7k models. the 3100 was not good enough. So it became a toss-up between the 5100 and 7000. I was mostly set on the D7000 as it was the "better" camera. but decided to give the 5100 a shot since it was cheaper and close to the D7k. When I held the 5100 it was definitely lighter and compact but that lightness made it feel fake. and the control knobs were "out of place"

I actually like the 'heft' of the D7000. I LOVE the dual SD card slots.

I came very close to thinking I would go with the D7100 for the more rugged body and added weather sealing, and would just learn to carry the extra weight, but upon discovering issues with banding and noise and grain, I have been somewhat put off. Plus, there are rumors of a D7100 successor in the next few months, which may address such issues while incorporating the more capable EXPEED 4 processor. For these reasons, I am inclined to perhaps start with the D5300, get a few lenses, and then make the jump presumably to the D7200. I also gave the Olympus OM-D E-M5 another look, but am still drawn more to the world of DSLR's. I NEED to make a decision by today or tomorrow. I am leaving in almost 3 weeks now!

For those who own or are familiar with the D7100: Assuming that I primarily shoot on Aperture Priority mode, or beginner mode, at least initially, what degree of confidence can I expect in NOT encountering excessive noise, banding, grain, and other such visual artifacts? Are such fears reason enough to opt for the D5300 instead? Many reviews for the D5300 claim that noise reduction is superior to the D5200 and that some of the visual artifacts present in the D5200, or even the D7100, like banding, are nonexistent in the D5300. Supposedly this is the result of the newer imaging processor.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I came very close to thinking I would go with the D7100 for the more rugged body and added weather sealing, and would just learn to carry the extra weight, but upon discovering issues with banding and noise and grain, I have been somewhat put off. Plus, there are rumors of a D7100 successor in the next few months, which may address such issues while incorporating the more capable EXPEED 4 processor. For these reasons, I am inclined to perhaps start with the D5300, get a few lenses, and then make the jump presumably to the D7200. I also gave the Olympus OM-D E-M5 another look, but am still drawn more to the world of DSLR's. I NEED to make a decision by today or tomorrow. I am leaving in almost 3 weeks now!

For those who own or are familiar with the D7100: Assuming that I primarily shoot on Aperture Priority mode, or beginner mode, at least initially, what degree of confidence can I expect in NOT encountering excessive noise, banding, grain, and other such visual artifacts? Are such fears reason enough to opt for the D5300 instead? Many reviews for the D5300 claim that noise reduction is superior to the D5200 and that some of the visual artifacts present in the D5200, or even the D7100, like banding, are nonexistent in the D5300. Supposedly this is the result of the newer imaging processor.

I've never noticed any banding in my images. Nor excessive noise.
I think buying the D5300 then upgrading to the D7200 would be a waste of money IMO. You will hardly notice the difference. Instead pick either a D5300 or D7100 and spend the balance on lenses.

 

[Apaflo]

For those who own or are familiar with the D7100: Assuming that I primarily shoot on Aperture Priority mode, or beginner mode, at least initially, what degree of confidence can I expect in NOT encountering excessive noise, banding, grain, and other such visual artifacts? Are such fears reason enough to opt for the D5300 instead? Many reviews for the D5300 claim that noise reduction is superior to the D5200 and that some of the visual artifacts present in the D5200, or even the D7100, like banding, are nonexistent in the D5300. Supposedly this is the result of the newer imaging processor.

If you really want something better than the D7100, the D5300 is not the direction to look.

 

[BJMRamage]

For those who own or are familiar with the D7100: Assuming that I primarily shoot on Aperture Priority mode, or beginner mode, at least initially, what degree of confidence can I expect in NOT encountering excessive noise, banding, grain, and other such visual artifacts? Are such fears reason enough to opt for the D5300 instead? Many reviews for the D5300 claim that noise reduction is superior to the D5200 and that some of the visual artifacts present in the D5200, or even the D7100, like banding, are nonexistent in the D5300. Supposedly this is the result of the newer imaging processor.

I only have the D7000 but don't notice noise/banding issues...well, unless I've bumped the ISO super high for hand-held nighttime parade shots.


and I have used a photographer for family portraits who uses a D7100 and I don't notice banding or any issues.

I will say this. I have No Regrets buying the D7000 over the slightly newer (at the time 3100 or 5100). the photographer I talked about earlier when from the 5200 to the 7100 and is very pleased.

I also use a Joby Strap: http://joby.com/camera-straps/ultrafit-sling-strap-for-men/ that makes having a camera with larger lens nicer to carry than the regular neck strap.

 

[shinji]

Thanks for the info. I plan on taking my iPhone 5s, a Go Pro HERO3+ (which a friend is lending to me), and my new DSLR. You're definitely right in that I will most likely be doing a lot of, if not all, shooting on auto. Really I just need to the order the damn camera. I'm four weeks away from leaving and am still thinking and debating. I wonder why more people were shooting Canon when you were there. The EOS 70D does interest me for the reasons I indicated earlier, but I still want to see more comparison shots between the D7100. Also, I fully plan to take my DSLR everywhere with me (e.g. when hiking glaciers, dog sledding, helicopter tour, etc.). The only exception I think I would make is if I go kayaking.

Going with the lighter D5300 may be better for travel, especially when the image quality is identical to the D7100. I would save money, which would allow me to put more towards lenses. But I can't say there isn't a subjective, aesthetic-based, style-driven aspect of this decision, because there is. However silly, there's just something about the bigger, more menacing, more professional appearance of the D7100.

Personally, I hate lugging around anything more than I need when I'm doing a ton of walking/hiking/whatever. I don't recommend letting the nicer aesthetics of the D7100 influence your enjoyment of this and future vacations.

Being in the right place at the right time in the right lighting is way more important than your camera body anyway. Lightest/smallest camera in the class you're considering is the way to go.

 

[Dick Whitman]

I only have the D7000 but don't notice noise/banding issues...well, unless I've bumped the ISO super high for hand-held nighttime parade shots.


and I have used a photographer for family portraits who uses a D7100 and I don't notice banding or any issues.

I will say this. I have No Regrets buying the D7000 over the slightly newer (at the time 3100 or 5100). the photographer I talked about earlier when from the 5200 to the 7100 and is very pleased.

I also use a Joby Strap: http://joby.com/camera-straps/ultrafit-sling-strap-for-men/ that makes having a camera with larger lens nicer to carry than the regular neck strap.

Thanks, that Joby Strap looks awesome, better than the Rapid R.

 

[MrGIS]

Thanks for the info. I plan on taking my iPhone 5s, a Go Pro HERO3+ (which a friend is lending to me), and my new DSLR. You're definitely right in that I will most likely be doing a lot of, if not all, shooting on auto. Really I just need to the order the damn camera. I'm four weeks away from leaving and am still thinking and debating. I wonder why more people were shooting Canon when you were there. The EOS 70D does interest me for the reasons I indicated earlier, but I still want to see more comparison shots between the D7100. Also, I fully plan to take my DSLR everywhere with me (e.g. when hiking glaciers, dog sledding, helicopter tour, etc.). The only exception I think I would make is if I go kayaking.

Going with the lighter D5300 may be better for travel, especially when the image quality is identical to the D7100. I would save money, which would allow me to put more towards lenses. But I can't say there isn't a subjective, aesthetic-based, style-driven aspect of this decision, because there is. However silly, there's just something about the bigger, more menacing, more professional appearance of the D7100.

Please excuse my direct language, but you're rational is foolish. Aesthetics should never be the primary factor in your decision marking process . Performance and handling are the chief concerns. Availability of good glass. The appearance of the camera has no effect on your skills as a photographer or the quality of the images you record.

For my money I'd being looking for the smallest package that meets the requirements. I've suggested micro 4/3 before.

The GH3 for example has weather sealing...

Keep reading, and forget this fashion statement silliness.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Please excuse my direct language, but you're rational is foolish. Aesthetics should never be the primary factor in your decision marking process . Performance and handling are the chief concerns. Availability of good glass. The appearance of the camera has no effect on your skills as a photographer or the quality of the images you record.

For my money I'd being looking for the smallest package that meets the requirements. I've suggested micro 4/3 before.

The GH3 for example has weather sealing...

Keep reading, and forget this fashion statement silliness.

Haha, it would be foolish if my rationale for choosing the D7100 was based on aesthetics alone. But it's not. As I indicated in previous posts, the more rugged body, weather sealing, dual SD card slots, and advanced controls would be perfect for the Alaskan wilderness. I'm just also acknowledging that ergonomics, build, and design are also something to be taken into consideration.

 

[Apaflo]

Aesthetics should never be the primary factor in your decision marking process . Performance and handling are the chief concerns. Availability of good glass. The appearance of the camera has no effect on your skills as a photographer or the quality of the images you record.

The OP made one off the wall remark about aesthetics, which does not appear to be a "primary factor". We should not ignore his priorities for his clearly outlined list of specific primary factors (as opposed to our own personal priorities and list of primary factors).

It appears that his top priority is image quality. Next is suitability (weather sealing etc) for the Alaska environment. Third comes the list of features.

His last two list items, both acknowledged and nearly ignored, appear to be size and fashion, are not "top" priorities.

For my money I'd being looking for the smallest package that meets the requirements. I've suggested micro 4/3 before.

The GH3 for example has weather sealing...

Keep reading, and forget this fashion statement silliness.

Critical to image quality is the sensor size. Likewise concentration on brand name.

Nikon is the right brand. Their DX models using the APS-C format are the smallest sensor size that can match the OP's apparent requirements. Between the D5300 and the D7100 there is not really much competition. The D5300 is equal in IQ, but not even close in other aspects.

The real question is whether he should actually be looking at FX bodies too. It appears that budget restraints limit that potential.

Hence it pretty well comes down to a D7100.

The OP might note that there certainly are people using all of these various recommended cameras "successfully" in Alaska. (Where "successfully" has a different definition in each case!) I see more Canon DSLR's than Nikon. I see more smartphones taking pictures than DSLR's too. It's a rare day that I see a 4/3 camera, or any mirrorless; but they clearly satisfy those whose needs they do fit. I could of course go on and on about using D4 or D800 bodies with long telephoto lenses! But that is my need, not yours.

 

[Dick Whitman]

If this is your first DSLR I strongly suggest you get it now and shoot, shoot, shoot!

The last thing you want is to be on a once in a lifetime trip trying to work out how to change the white balance or something.

I own the D7100 and it's a nice camera. However I think the more important question's are;
What do you want to shoot (landscape, wildlife etc)
What lenses will you use.
My list is below.

Have you experienced any issues with banding in owning your D7100?

 

[Apple fanboy]

Have you experienced any issues with banding in owning your D7100?

None at all. A colleague has the D7000 and he doesn't either. I've had it since March, and shoot most weeks.

 

[Apaflo]

Have you experienced any issues with banding in owning your D7100?

If you want a discussion of D7100 banding (actually, of Toshiba sensor banding), with a lot of other good information too:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/current-nikon-dslr-reviews/nikon-d7100-review.html

Thom Hogan does a better job of putting Nikon's pros and cons into perspective than just about anyone, even if he does whine incessantly that Nikon's management ignores him. Here is the final wrap he gives to the banding issue, and he is dead on right:

"If I seem a little flip about this so-called "fault" of the D7100, it's because I am."

There is a little bit of a devil in the details, and he does give the specifics of why he should be flip about it. He just doesn't provide much explanation of what the specifics actually do mean.

For example, he says:

"[...] what we're actually seeing in such examples are things usually eight or more stops below middle gray. In normal situations, you're just not going to see such problems."

Consider what 8 stops below middle gray is! It's at least 2-3/4 stops below absolute white, and hence it means a dynamic range of very close to 11 stops, minimum. The catch is that the JPEG image format cannot display more than just over 9 stops, and a typical print will show less than 8 stops (which is why JPEG was designed for slightly more).

Absent contrived examples to show banding, you as a landscape/people photographer are never going to see it in your own work.

Later if you happen to get into HDR you might. And if post processing becomes something of a habit, you'll be able to show the banding. However, while banding in those instances is indeed a fault, the actual effect is minimal if for no other reason than quantization distortion is visually more offensive and will (at least with 14 bit depth image data) always exist at the same time.

 

[nitromac]

If you want menacing and professional get a D4S. Then you can join the crowd of $7000 camera owners that buy it for that reason and leave it in auto.

The 7100 is an excellent camera, you won't have any noise issues (this isn't 2006) and you'll have money to spend on some nice lenses. Plus it's a camera that won't be outdated within a year so you can keep it for a pretty long time. If you can afford the extra money for the 7100 over the 5300, take it.

If you're going on this trip with other people you might consider a mirrorless too. They're much more casual and still deliver very good IQ.

 

[Dick Whitman]

If you want menacing and professional get a D4S. Then you can join the crowd of $7000 camera owners that buy it for that reason and leave it in auto.

The 7100 is an excellent camera, you won't have any noise issues (this isn't 2006) and you'll have money to spend on some nice lenses. Plus it's a camera that won't be outdated within a year so you can keep it for a pretty long time. If you can afford the extra money for the 7100 over the 5300, take it.

If you're going on this trip with other people you might consider a mirrorless too. They're much more casual and still deliver very good IQ.

Thanks for your help. I plan on taking my iPhone 5s, a Go Pro HERO3+, and a Nikon DX DSLR. I have the money for the D7100, but was just debating whether the IQ in the D5300 may be slightly superior. Both cameras have their pros and cons. I will have (hopefully) made a decision by tonight and ordered something. Being as I leave in just 3 weeks now, I really need to allow time for the camera to arrive and for me to become familiar with the controls.