How "Water Resistant" is the D300?

I just saw this article about the oly E-3, and got impressed by the picture of the guy droping water on the camera from a bottle:

http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/o...-e3-review.html

That picture and other of the camera totally wet under rain, make me assume that this camera could survive a good leak inside a housing, or at least have more chance to survive than others DSLR...

That´s making me wonder, the D300 came sealed like that?, I mean one of its features is "dust and water resistant", or something like that...

Anyone want to drop half a bottle of water on his new and shinny D300? c´mon, you can take a picture and post it here!

I lost a D70 and a D200, both in IKELITE houses.

Let it be clear that ONE drop of salt water anywhere in the camera means "OVER AND OUT"

A DSLR in a housing get any water first from the bottem of the camera.

I now am the owner of an E3 and when I look at the plastic cover (door) which closes

the battery I challange anyone to execute the waterproof test with the camera upside down.

Do not say I did not warn you...

I just returned from a trip to Kauai with the D300. I didn't get my housing for it until yesterday, but I took the camera on a couple of hikes on the island. This time of year it is WET there and the hikes were litterally ankle deep in mud half the time. The D300 came though just fine despite lots of rain and drizzle, and one really nasty fall. I fell hard on my bum at one point and the camera (in a LowePro mini bag) hit the ground then bounced about 20 feet down the hill. I'm lucky it didn't plument a 1000' over the edge, but the camera was no worse for the wear.

I thought the autofocus was toast at first, but I finally realized that the focus selector selector switch got bumped from S to C and all was well.

So I would have to say that I am pretty satisfied with the durability and water resistance so far. But no, I am not going to dump a bottle of water on it!

Dave

There is a HUGE difference between freshwater water trickling onto the top of camera and it actually sitting immersed in salt water as a result of a housing flood.

I was caught in some fairly torrential downpours on the south coast of New Zealand and my D200 was fine, but I'd be astonished if survived immersion in even an inch of water in the bottom of a housing. I imagine much the same would apply to the E3. It is about the pressure and period of exposure to water. Think about it this way... water actually pressing against the little rubber gaskets for a long time vs a short droplet running over a gasket. With rain or even big water drops from a bottle, the period of exposure and the pressure is far less than that experienced in immersion conditions.

I would rate the sealing as very low criterion in my camera choice decision list. Before attempting to analyse the differences here I'd be considering things like IQ, lens availability, viewfinder, autofocus ability, housing choices and ergonomics. Perhaps you've already considered those things, but either way, I don't think you can realistically expect either camera to "survive a good leak inside a housing" - sorry.

I think if you flood your housing - either a major or small flood - you will need to replace your camera. This applies to both the E-3 and the D300, and even pro cameras like the D3 and 1DsIII

I can speak from experience on this one.

Water under pressure rushing into a housing (and the internal guts of the camera) that is at atmospheric is a lot different than watter pouring on the camera body.

Cheers

James

I agree with James. The water that enters a housing underwater is actually sucked into any airspace within that housing. I flooded my 5d and it sucked in water like a vacuum b/c under-pressure it was a vacuum!

Yes but one that is weather sealed might survive a partial flood. I don't think anyone thinks any camera is going to survive a full housing flood at depth. One where you go 15ft down and realize somethings wrong and head back up is a different story altogether. I would think the weather sealing would be extremely beneficial in this case.

I don't know about the E3, but the E1 it's based on has been proven to take a lot. People have briefly dropped them into shallow streams, completely submerged them. I've rinsed mine off in the sink after shooting on the beach on windy days (it's fine), and that stream of water has some pressure behind it.

True, a full flood has significant pressure differential, but a minor flood, a drippy leak, doesn't.

Why everybody is talking about a flood??? I wrote "a good leak", don´t be so fatalist...

I mean it to analyze if this "water resistant" cameras, or features would resist a leak, you know, that thing that happen when you are lucky and only some water enter in your housing in the rinse tank or when you are in the surface.

It´s pretty much obvious that no camera will resist a flood, and most (not all) leaks when submerged tend to end as a flood do to pressure.

Now getting back on topic... c´mon nobody wants to rinse it like Roger?

It's the salt: even a drop shorts out the electronics, and bye-bye camera.

Tim

B)

Hmmm. I once had water dripping steadily though a top control on an old housing on a dive in Antarctica, of all places. I was convinced the camera was doomed, so I dashed off two hopeless shots of an iceberg before heading to the surface in what may reasonably be called 'a hurry'. I must have had a quarter-inch of water in the bottom of the housing, and most of the drops had actually been running down the camera body, but it survived. It was a humble D100.

I think I was lucky, but it led me to believe that a sealed or semi-sealed body (the D100 was neither, being lightweight and vulnerable to moisture) can be a handy thing if your camera is undergoing water torture inside the housing.

I dunno. While I don't have a housing for my 1D, it's been submerged in a river for 2 seconds when I fell and was still working right off the bat. Was I lucky? Yes but I often rinse my 1D off with a sprinkler hose to get rid of sea salt, sand and dust. Obviously, using an L lense with weathersealing is essential to do that. A friend's D2X died with the same treatment (while trying to prove that the D2x was just as good ).

Doesn't matter how weather sealed the camera body is if the lens isn't. I do believe Canon is ahead on weathersealing the lenses. That's the reason I throw money at Canon.

I dunno. While I don't have a housing for my 1D, it's been submerged in a river for 2 seconds when I fell and was still working right off the bat. Was I lucky? Yes but I often rinse my 1D off with a sprinkler hose to get rid of sea salt, sand and dust. Obviously, using an L lense with weathersealing is essential to do that. A friend's D2X died with the same treatment (while trying to prove that the D2x was just as good ).

Doesn't matter how weather sealed the camera body is if the lens isn't. I do believe Canon is ahead on weathersealing the lenses. That's the reason I throw money at Canon.

...in addition the D2X does not have the "error 99" feature, which comes for free with the Canon's

I know Ryan tells a story of slipping and completely immersing a D2h in a stream - and it was totally fine! But my impression is that the Canon pro bodies are better than the D2 series Nikons (I have heard that the D3 is better than the D2). Eric tells a funny story of using his 1DsMk2 to keep his sandwiches dry in the rain.

I have been less fortunate lately. While I have never flooded my D2x I did have a curious autofocus problem on my last trip which NPS attributed to corrosion around the lens mount and the AF detector unit - both of which had to be replaced. The corrosion was most probably a result of my camera regularly being in such salty environments.

Curiously the symptoms of the problem was that the camera stopped autofocusing reliably with 60mm AFD and 105mm AFS macro lenses. All the other lenses were fine - so it basically became a wide angle camera. My nickname for this ailment was "Frink's disease". Stephen Frink is celebrated as being the most published underwater photographer - and since he shoots stuff to sell he rarely shoots macro - because macro doesn't sell! My camera was simply trying to make me a more commercially orientated photographer - now there is a feature worth paying more for!

Alex

I would expect both to be able to survive what you describe as a "leak" (ie something you basically discover on your way down, and where you immediately rush back up to avoid it from flooding).

The Oly is very impressive, actually...

(Taken from Olympus SLR talk on DP Review)

However, the big difference between Oly and Nikon is that all Zuiko lenses from "pro" and up (including 8mm fisheye, 50mm macro and 7-14 wa zoom) are weather sealed as well. As far as I can tell, only Nikon pro glass is sealed, meaning you still wouldn't have a fully weather sealed system except for with a rare few lenses.

Just proves what I always say: DRINKING AND PHOTOGRAPHY DON'T MIX.

Seriously, though, while the camera may survive it just fine...I think I'd belt the guy who tried that, even on his own camera!

Olympus has a total of thirteen lenses, fifteen if you count the 1.4 & X2 tele converters that can withstand the water test. The tele converters work with all of the lenses as well.

If my E-3 holds up as well in the rain, salt spray and humidity as my E-1 has I will be very happy.

I don't think any camera can hold up in a flood but it sure will make a difference with small amounts of salt water.

Phil Rudin

Great pic Phil. Good demonstration.

I could do that w/ my 1D body in freshwater and not worry at all too. I've got some stories from Tanzania when we were there in the rainy season... It's a beautiful thing.

Cheers

James

That´s what I´m talking about!

Now we just need a couple of brave WP that do that on a D300 and post the photos...

Now we just need a couple of brave stupid WP that do that on a D300 and post the photos...