Chocolate Rose

We booked our Alaskan cruise for next May pretty much based on the itinerary. I would recommend looking at different itineraries and find the one that most matches what you want to see and do. Then start looking at which cruise line has the itinerary and what the available dates are. (I'm a first time cruiser so you may not want to listen to me).

We're doing a HAL cruise next May that goes to Sitka, Hubbard, AND Icy Straight Point. Maybe something for you to consider?

Where do you ladies find beautiful tops? I won't be taking any dresses, but would still like to have something pretty to wear. I ordered a couple of pairs of palazzo pants (recommended by a friend who cruises a lot). But, I'm not finding any "fancy" tops to go with them.

IF they have set up the system properly, I would expect that you buy your internet minutes and then get the price credited back to you.

 

That's how it works on Cunard, where various internet packages are given as past-passenger perks. We buy the package we're entitled to and our account is charged and then immediately reimbursed.

 

Given HAL's system, I wonder if it will just become general OBC onboard. That's what happened with the OBC that was meant for tours a while back.

Thanks! It would definitely be helpful for planning (at least MY planning) if the rates and packages were published.

I'm happy to have the E4 package as depending on the cost of internet, my OBC can be used for excursions and other extras.

HAL PCC explained that this was a $200 credit toward internet offerings. The packages were available to review/purchase once on-board as each ship has different offerings. Don't know if calling Guest Services would be of assistance or not.

Hmmm, it would definitely be helpful if they published the packages for each ship on the website.

Thank you!

Maybe it's a $200 credit toward whatever plan you want.

That's what I'm wondering, too. Where are the plans listed?

My HAL receipt says "$200 internet promo".

That's a bit different than my confirmation:

Member Benefits and Added Values:

• Signature Beverage Package for two - Additional Details

• One Pinnacle Grill dinner for two

• A $200 internet credit

• complimentary Hotel Service charges.

I wonder if we have to buy internet time and then apply the $200 to it?

Is it $200 or 200 minutes? I don't think there is a $200 plan?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's "$200 internet credit". I'm not sure what that converts to.

I went ahead and added the Explore4 to our existing cruise. But, I can't find any info on how many minutes is equal to the "$200 internet". Does anyone know?

Nope. That's a decent deal ;). Pricing varies on different cruises. Some are decent and others are so high no one would do it. Looks like you have done well :) ;)

Thanks for the reassurance! It's our first cruise and still figuring things out.

I'm wondering if I'm missing something. I just called the big box store that we booked our cruise through and they called Hal. For $380 more we would get the Explore4 including the $200 internet credit and paid gratuities.

It seems like Explore4 would just about pay for itself with just the gratuities. I need to check out the specifics of the beverage package as I don't drink pop (sugar or sugar-free), juice or coffee. I would drink water and wine. My travel partner drinks it all. We can keep our existing booking.

Is there something I'm missing and need to be aware of before we decide to do this?

THere is so much information here, having trouble sorting it all. Cruise to Alaska 2017,possible solo or with 1 adult child. WHich cruise line is best? Prob. 7 days, don't have time to do land and sea. Suggestions appreciated, really looking for scenery and nature, don't care about entertainment. Thank you!

We're doing the 14 day cruise round trip from Seattle on HAL Amsterdam. Never cruised before and never been to Alaska. We decided on this particular one because of the itinerary (we were initially going to only go for 7 days) and the amount of time in each port. This cruise includes Anchorage, Homer and Kodiak. Totally excited! I bought this book, The Alaska Cruise Handbook: A Mile-by-Mile Guide by Joe Upton, and highly recommend it. My recommendation is to pick the itinerary you want rather than the ship/cruise line unless you are looking for something other than scenery and nature.

It's just what happens when you ask an enthusiast their opinion on what you should buy. Doesn't matter what the object is - Cameras, watches, dive gear, kitchen knives, etc...

Regarding your Canon A3100 - you should see notable improvements from nearly any modern camera over $200.

Why would anybody need to buy a new lens every year or so to get the most out of their DSLRs? I bought my Nikon 16-85 around 7 years ago and still does exactly what I need it to. Sure I could upgrade to the new 16-80 but I know it would gain me nothing (it might gain something for someone but definitely not me). Sure one can buy additional lens, maybe some primes and macro lenses but many DSLR owners just have no use for them.

I really appreciate you all sticking with me on this and sharing your opinions.

Yep, I was thinking the same thing about my Canon. ;)

I'm thinking that with the dslr I should have a decent camera and hopefully should become a better photographer with it. I'm hoping to have the lenses I need for most of what I want to do. Then, if I do decide to become more involved with photography, figure out how to afford additional lenses.

Just wondering, when is your trip to Alaska Chocolate Rose?

 

It sounds like you are leaning toward a DSLR for your cruise so just remember that the DSLR and standard lens that comes with it won’t be enough. You will want to have at least one good zoom lens for that camera for wildlife photography, whales, eagles, seals, etc.

 

Before you buy a DSLR for your Alaskan cruise ask the others on this forum what are the minimum lenses you will need to take with you to get the photos you want of Alaska.

 

There is no question a DSLR can take better photos than a P&S but a quality P&S is quite capable of taking excellent photos. If you plan to become serious about photography as a hobby then get the DSLR. If you just want a camera for taking great vacation photos then buy the P&S. As I said before, regardless of what you buy, learn the features of the camera and how to use it before your trip.

My cruise isn't until next May, so I'll have some time to experiment and learn with whatever camera I end up with. I keep going back and forth between the p&s and the dslr. But, you're right. Right now I'm thinking that it makes more sense to go with the dslr, use the time I have before the cruise to learn how to use it, and then see what I think.

One more random thought: do you have any friends nearby who have a DSLR? If so, and you think they're willing to mentor you, buy the same brand as them. They might loan you gear to try before you buy. They can talk you through settings with better context than if they had a different brand. You could perhaps form a micro co-op, and choose your purchases so you don't duplicate each other's things, and can share if the opportunity comes up. A friend and neighbor has a Canon, and I was just helping her out the other day, something I couldn't do nearly as well if she'd gone Nikon. (Amongst everything else, I feel like far more Nikon users hate their camera's menu system than any other brand, but if it "talks to you" or you have friends who "get it", let that guide you.)

Right now, I don't. This actually started because a coworker told me her daughter bought a Rebel and loves it and that's what I should get. I was then talking to my daughter (at college) who told me that she and her boyfriend had just bought the Nikon D3300 and LOVE it. She also has the same p&s as I do and was very frustrated with it. But, neither of them live locally. I'll have to start asking around. I'm also leaning towards purchasing from Costco because of their return policy, not that I'm planning on returning it, but just in case something goes very wrong. And, I spoke with my sister (in another city)who bought a Panasonic and took a class. Her instructor dislikes Panasonic but loves Canon. Too many choices...

Ah, let me "help you rephrase that". Yes, you will upgrade your starter lenses at some point, but more importantly you'll add lenses that give you new capabilities and expand what you have and can do. Perhaps a "fast 50" for portraits, a "fast 85" for kids/grandkids' indoor sports, maybe an ultra-wide for landscapes, maybe a birding supertelephoto zoom, etc.

 

Every lens is a compromise. Sometimes it's made for a low price. Sometimes it's made for low light performance, at the expense of how fast it focuses. Sometimes it's made for getting extreme closeups of wildlife, at the expense of weight (and outright expense!). Kit (starter) lenses are optimized for price and initial versatility, plain and simple.

 

I still have the first camera and the first lens I bought (ignoring the Minolta stuff that got stolen) as an adult. That lens is my wife's "main" lens. The camera is, however, our "shelf spare", called into action if needed (and there's no time to rent something newer) and on loan to my dad to shoot the birds by the lake. However, the other kit lenses we got around the same time are all sold, though one stayed with us for 7-8 years.

 

Here's a fantastic article that might give you a taste of what DSLR life is like. Some of it won't make sense to you yet; that's OK. Read past the progression part, and take a look at what he says for where to start, where to go next, and how to specialize after that. If none of this sounds appealing, perhaps DSLR isn't right for you. If some of it does though, you're on the right track.

 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/lenses-dont-collect-the-whole-set/

Thank you! Good article!

But who knew deciding on a camera was going to be so dang frustrating!!

Can you buy a new lens every year, or perhaps every 18 months? If not, I think you're going to miss out on what a DSLR can do for you. Perhaps every 6-8 years, you might pick up a new DSLR.

Possibly. I guess that my thoughts were that I would purchase a decent camera with decent lenses, maybe add a couple of lenses as needed, and I'd be able to learn to take decent photos and continue with using the equipment without feeling like I needed to constantly upgrade.

To clarify, the Nikon kit has an 18-55 lens, not an 8-55 lens. That puts it on par with Canon kits. The D3300 has been out on the market since January 2014, making it 2.5 years old. I tell people to never buy a camera that's already been replaced, nor to buy a camera that's >2 years old (from release date). The technology comes so incredibly far all the time, on so many levels: ISO capability, focus, menu clarity, LCD screen, you name it. Sure, the photographer is a very important element in the finished product, but if I put two cameras on tripods, reset them to factory defaults and neutralize any "cheats" the manufacturers may have dropped into the settings, and take shots at ISO 100 and f/8 with the same lenses, you can tell the images apart fairly easily, especially when there's 3+ years difference.

Oops, that was probably my copy and paste fault.

So, you're recommending not going for the Nikon. What about the Canon Rebel kit that I mentioned?

Unless your old camera is an entry level, very cheap P&S, you might be surprised how little difference there is. I have a Canon S100 that is "only" 5x zoom, but it's a pretty good 5x zoom camera ($350 retail when it was new) that takes pictures nearly as well as my Nikon DSLRs in good conditions and the differences that are there may be "invisible" to the average camera user.

 

If you current P&S is entry level, then that Canon, and any DSLR will definitely take technically better (better dynamic range, better tones,saturation, less noise, etc...) pictures.

 

Do you have any existing pictures that you can post that demonstrate the shortcomings of your current camera? posting the model would help also.

 

I just don't want you to "buy into" the DSLR hype*, spend a bunch of money on a body and a couple lens and camera bag to haul it all around in, only to find the pictures are not significantly better than what you already have and in exchange you get to carry a boat anchor everywhere you go.

 

* for the record I don't think DSLR is hype - I love my DSLRs - but I do think a lot of people buy them thinking they'll get amazingly better photos and are often quite dissapointed.

I have a Canon Powershot A3100 that's probably 8 years old.

Here is my take. I believe that if you are only going to own one camera, and you are interested in photography, want to learn about photography, and want to grow as a photographer, that one camera should be a DSLR. I don't say this because it will take better pictures than a point and shoot, or mirrorless. It won't. The quality of photos depends almost exclusively on the skill of the photographer.

 

I say this because of the flexibility of DSLS's. At this time, there is simply a much wider variety of lenses, flashes, and other accessories that are available from any of the major camera providers (Canon, Nikon, etc.) As one grows as a photographer, the flexibility will be appreciated.

 

I disagree that a modern DSLR will need to be replaced in two to three years. SLR's are a very mature technology. For the last few years, their picture taking ability has not improved greatly. Granted, a few years from now, the newest SLR's will have more and different features. But I doubt very much that they will take much better pictures.

 

This is not to diminish the value of having a mirrorless, point and shoot, etc. I own several DSLR's, a point and shoot, and use my iPhone on occasion. I am considering buying a mirrorless for the small size. But, in my opinion, if you are serious about photography, and only want to own one camera, it should be a DSLR.

Thank you. This is very reassuring. I would like to learn photography skills and can't imagine buying a new camera every few years. I just don't have that ability. Wish I did...

You mention wanting to get a DSLR now because in a couple of years you'll want that. In a couple of years, the DSLR you buy today will likely to have been replaced (twice) with models with better options, like the ability to use higher ISO with less noise or something we haven't even conceived yet. If you're buying just for this trip and then not planning to use it much for the next couple years, your better choice might be the point and shoot now, because it is the cheaper option. It too will be close to obsolete in 2 years, but you will have all your lovely cruise shots to make it worth-while. Having been bit by the camera bug, I consider buying the camera you need for the trip as part of the cruise expense (the cruise is a BIG expense and the camera is a small expense to help you remember and appreciate the trip.)

 

Most people using DSLRs invest in their lenses, and replace their camera bodies every 2-3 years, although I have kept some of mine and used them a lot for about 5 years.

I plan to continue using whatever camera I do buy. I just had specific thoughts on what I need for this trip and so that's what I wanted in a camera.

I had thought that people held onto their dslr cameras for many years and it was the lenses that they upgraded if needed/wanted. Guess I had it backwards.

The absolute best device for zoom is... your two feet. With any consumer P&S or kit lens, zooming reduces the quality of the image. Whether a 10x zoom or a 50x zoom.

I'll try to explain it simply -- Consumer kits lenses and P&S cameras use smaller apertures as you zoom in --- That means they let less light into the camera. As they let in less light, they need to reduce the shutter speed -- which leads to blurry images. Or they need to boost the sensitivity/ISO -- leading to grainy images, though the camera may try to blur away the graininess. Additionally, longer zoom requires a faster shutter speed for steadiness, but due to the smaller aperture, you often need to use a slower shutter speed, again increasing the chances of a blurry image. In other words, by zooming in significantly with any P&S or kit zoom lens, you are more and more likely to get blurry/dark/grainy images. The lower the quality of the camera and/or lens, the more significant the difference.

 

The way you get sharp clear photos -- beyond making sure you use good technique to hold the camera really steady, is to get more light.

The ways to get more light are: Bright sunny days! On a bright sunny day, you can get a sharp clear image with any camera ever built. If you can't get a sharp clear image even with a 10 year old P&S, on a bright and sunny day, then you're doing something wrong.

Assuming you don't have a super bright sunny day... that's when you get into the capabilities of the camera and the skill of the photographer -- If a camera has a bigger sensor -- it can absorb more light. Thus, a dSLR/mirrorless has a bigger sensor than most P&S cameras. If a lens has a larger aperture, then it can also let in more light. (typically expensive lenses versus cheaper lenses).

And if the photographer understands how to manually adjust the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, as well as know how to make proper use of off camera lighting, or tripods, it also ultimately lets in more light.

Thank for all the info!

What about your current photos needs to be "better"? Having additional zoom certainly seems to be one of your goals, but what else? Beyond greater zoom range (which is a perfectly reasonable, valid desire), what are you expecting from a new camera that your current camera doesn't provide?

 

A lot of people think that buying a new camera will somehow "magically" make their pictures better and are disappointed after purchasing to find they look basically the same. As someone posted before, Cameras don't take great pictures - people do.

I'm pretty positive a newer camera will take "better" photos than the camera I have.

I'm basically looking for more clarity, clearer colors, ability to zoom, etc.

Just my opinion here.

 

Keep in mind Chocolate Rose that while the two cameras you mentioned in your original post aren’t that much different in price, the Canon DSLR will require additional lenses that aren’t cheap. The Canon SX530 can be bought for just under $300 while the DSLR and just one additional good lens will cost you around $1000 (probably more) and you still won’t have the telephoto capabilities of the SX530. For the average person just wanting vacation photos I always think the bridge camera is the best choice.

Right. And that was why I had initially decided on the SX530. But, I know that in a couple of years I'll want a dslr and was trying to make the most of my money. I'm still really torn.

I just noticed that I made a mistake in my original post. I've actually been looking at 2 dslrs. Both on sale at Costco right now. The second one is the Nikon D3300. It's the one that comes with the 8-55MM F/3.5-5.6G VR II and 55-200MM F/4-5.6G lenses. The sale on the SC530 ends next Saturday and the sale on the 2 dslrs ends at the end of the month. Just trying to make a decision I won't regret. ;)

I just wanted to clear that "auto" isn't always as automatic as a P&S.

 

As far as the focal lengths available, I did a live comparison last year on the Ruby Princess. I went up to a platform at the back of the ship and aimed at the bridge with most of the different lenses we brought. Go there, and arrow-right through the series (I apologize for the ads that pop in there). You'll see a lens with a number or a range of numbers; for example, that first lens is an 11-24mm ultra-wide lens. You'll then see a shot at its widest (lowest number) then a shot at its tightest. One thing I have to point out for reference sake: on a crop-sensor camera such as a Canon Rebel, other Canon DSLRs with two-digit model number, Nikon DSLRs with a four-digit number, and perhaps other Nikon models, all lenses behave as though they've been multiplied by 1.6x (Canon) or 1.5x (Nikon). That means that a 24mm lens on our cameras behaves like a 39mm (Canon) or 36mm (Nikon) lens when on a crop camera. As such, the 18-55mm lens behaves like it's a 28-88mm lens as seen in this comparison. In other words, to get wide, you have to get a really low focal length lens, but to get tight, you don't have to go as crazy as I do (a 400mm on a Rebel would be even tighter than the 600mm shot you see in this comparison).

Great comparisons! Thank you for sharing these!