Jump to content

DSLR kit or compact digital


rowrow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tossing up if it's worth lugging a DSLR Nikon D7100 and 1 or 2 lens plus a few other bits or a couple of reasonable quality compact digitals which can shoot RAW (without 1" sensor) on flights, boat, bus and train from AU to Alaska and back?

I understand the difference in quality for poster printing, competitions, etc, but that's not our aim this time.

Just need goodish quality images for audiovisuals, printed albums, etc.

And how important is a longish zoom?

Any advice appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tossing up if it's worth lugging a DSLR Nikon D7100 and 1 or 2 lens plus a few other bits or a couple of reasonable quality compact digitals which can shoot RAW (without 1" sensor) on flights, boat, bus and train from AU to Alaska and back?

I understand the difference in quality for poster printing, competitions, etc, but that's not our aim this time.

Just need goodish quality images for audiovisuals, printed albums, etc.

And how important is a longish zoom?

Any advice appreciated.

Long zoom a must for Alaska in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur with Mr. Gut: IMHO a long lens is essential in Alaska. Granted, I'm "addicted", so I rented a 600/4 with a 1.4x TC, and through careful excursion selections I'm finally happy with my eagle photos. My #2 camera was a 100-400, and #3 was a 24-70. I'd borrow the camera off the back of the 600 and put a 14/2.8 on it for the rare ultra-wide shot, but Alaska is just so big that a 24-x is often a perfectly fine starting point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tossing up if it's worth lugging a DSLR Nikon D7100 and 1 or 2 lens plus a few other bits or a couple of reasonable quality compact digitals which can shoot RAW (without 1" sensor) on flights, boat, bus and train from AU to Alaska and back?

I understand the difference in quality for poster printing, competitions, etc, but that's not our aim this time.

Just need goodish quality images for audiovisuals, printed albums, etc.

And how important is a longish zoom?

Any advice appreciated.

 

It depends. How close are you going to get to the animals or other targets of interest? If you are close, you don't need a super zoom or long lens.

I know, the above is totally obvious. But "how close" is the key and that really depends on your plans. If you will be sitting on boats, bus, train taking shots of random wildlife, it almost doesn't matter what lens you have because a short zoom won't give you the needed reach and a long zoom or fixed will be unusable. If you will be going places and doing things that give you a chance to get closer to your subject(s), then I think a full-frame equivalent of 70-200 is just fine. In my own experience, my best wildlife shots on land (bear, wolf, ptarmigan) were with 70-200 or 24-70. Onboard for my best shots (whales bubblenet feeding) I used the 70-200 shooting between 135-150mm.

So again, it depends. The issue is about positioning yourself and about luck, not just equipment.

 

I saw people taking iPhone shots of far-away bears. They could show people the image. "Hey, I saw a bear!" And most people have seen enough images of bears that they could look at the brown fuzzy blob and imagine the bear and emotionally connect with and rejoice with this person who saw a bear. Will you be satisfied with this sort of outcome when you share your printed album? Or do you actually want to depict the bear, no leap of imagination required? In my opinion, better quality is not just about poster-size prints or competitions, it is about capturing and representing what you saw. Your memory of your time there will fill in the gaps for you, but if you want to share the experience, better is better.

 

Short answer to your question, in Alaska I carried a medium format, a full frame, an APS-C, associated lenses, and two reasonable quality compact digitals. They all had their use. (And of 10,000+ images, 464 were shot with the 400mm lens.) I did not approach my selection in terms of which system(s) do I take, but rather in terms of which scenes do I hope to capture. Most of those images involved being part of the setting, not standing back shooting at long distance. Which goes back to my first point of how far away from your subject do you expect to be. Which depends on how you are traveling, where you are traveling, what sort of freedom of movement you will have (on your own vs. small group vs. typical excursion.) But no, I don't think a longish lens is all that key.

 

Enjoy! It is awesome country.

 

Stan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does depends on the itinerary. If you are going into Denali for example, I can't imagine going in without at least a 300-400mm. But if 90 percent of your shots are going to be from a cruise ship or in a town probably the compacts are fine. When we did alaska I took the longest lens I had back then and was very glad to have it in Denali and on one excursion (floatplane and lake cruise) but those were the only 2 days I used it on the trip (wildlife while afloat is luck of the draw - unless you are camping out for it you are not going to have the long lens ready for it when it pops). If you are doing glacier bay, I would be sure to carry a good wide/ultra-wide as well.

 

If we were to cruise Alaska today, my kit would be the D500 with the Tamron 18-400 (I probably would not carry the 150-600), Sigma 24-105, and a second body with a 12-18 on it full time. We would be doing Denali on any trip we took.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all. I'll probably end up taking most of the gear we have 'just in case'. Apart from the cruise we'll be on a Princess guided tour in Alaska for 8 nights end of May early June so not expecting a heap of wildlife at that time from what I've read. And on a tour with excursions I expect there won't be a lot of self time to wander off into the wilderness. One compact has a 30x zoom and the DSLR has a 10-24 wide as well as a general walkabout 18-140. Have been thinking about getting something like a 18-400. For extra extra wide I usually try a series and merge to a panoramic. Looking forward to it and I'm sure we'll enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not go to Alaska without my DSLR, with a minimum 10-20mm wide angle & 70-300mm Telephoto, also wouldn't hurt bringing a 18-200mm. I even brought my 150-500mm.

 

A nice alternate and lighter DSLR is a D5600

 

Why not go mirrorless? smaller than dslr with the advantages of one like the Sony A6000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See the thread about the 18-400 if you haven't. I think it would be a great lens for Alaska.

 

I assume your excursions go into Denali? You will want a 300 or better there, as there WILL be wildlife (the only question is what). I would have killed to have the 18-400 back then...

 

Thanks all. I'll probably end up taking most of the gear we have 'just in case'. Apart from the cruise we'll be on a Princess guided tour in Alaska for 8 nights end of May early June so not expecting a heap of wildlife at that time from what I've read. And on a tour with excursions I expect there won't be a lot of self time to wander off into the wilderness. One compact has a 30x zoom and the DSLR has a 10-24 wide as well as a general walkabout 18-140. Have been thinking about getting something like a 18-400. For extra extra wide I usually try a series and merge to a panoramic. Looking forward to it and I'm sure we'll enjoy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most will say that a long zoom is critical for Alaska. Completely true if you want to capture wildlife.

But on the other hand -- when we were there, we had pouring rain every day we were on land. The wildlife all went into hiding. I had a long zoom, that I basically didn't even get to use. I did get a couple so-so eagle shots, but otherwise, I didn't touch my long zoom.

On the other hand -- I was using my ultrawide angle all the time.

 

So if you hope to make it a wildlife safari trip -- then you need the long zoom.

If you are mostly hoping to capture the breathtaking vistas.... ultrawide angle may be much more important that a long telephoto zoom.

 

I do think you'd be ok with a 1" sensor camera. Light may get challenging at times with lots of very overcast days.. but you should generally have enough light to make a 1" sensor work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We went to Alaska two years ago. It was part of a 6 weeks visit to the US and Canada. I had travelled before with a DSLR and up to three lenses. I decided to go with something different - a Panasonic TZ70, backed up with an iPhone. Overall I'm glad I did mainly because:

  • it's a lot less weight to carry around;
  • a long enough zoom for bears and whales etc, and
  • wide enough for some spectacular landscapes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tossing up if it's worth lugging a DSLR Nikon D7100 and 1 or 2 lens plus a few other bits or a couple of reasonable quality compact digitals which can shoot RAW (without 1" sensor) on flights, boat, bus and train from AU to Alaska and back?

I understand the difference in quality for poster printing, competitions, etc, but that's not our aim this time.

Just need goodish quality images for audiovisuals, printed albums, etc.

And how important is a longish zoom?

Any advice appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I went from a Canon 70D with 3 or 4 lenses to an RX10/RX100 pair and have been mostly happy with that
How sweet is the RX100, eh?

 

I got rid of my 70D a couple of years back. Lovely camera, and I had some good lenses, but it was too big and bulky for my sort of travel. Something I can carry in my hand, or tuck in my pocket is the go for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take both. That compact will fit nicely in the pocket but if you don't have that long lens for the once in a lifetime shot you'll regret it for a long time. But on the other hand, I bet you can find perfectly good photos of Alaskan whales/eagles/bears etc on the internet for the scrapbook and just use the compact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Friend just bought a Sony RX100 v5. We'll see how it goes, as she's going with us on our next two trips. We've tried various point and shoots, and even a Sony a6000, but nothing compact has come close to filling our needs. Very annoying cuz our dslr setup weighs a ton.

 

We've been using a D750 with 2.8 lenses and an iPhone. iPhone 7, and now iPhone X. The X in particular, is frankly amazing. I'm sure the most recent high end Android phone is similar. The cameras on the high end smart phones easily beat any p&s I've tried. They just can't handle the tougher situations yet, along with zoom, which is why we still need to lug the dslr around as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the $6000 Full-Frame Leica M10 coming in only 1 point ahead of the $750 Sony APS-C A6300 on the DxoMark sensor tests, The argument over DSLR or compact ILC mirrorless is essentially moot IMHO. Any modern higher-end mirrorless or DSLR will provide excellent imaging with the only factor left being personal preference. Even the latest cameras with the 1" sensors like the Sony RX100, RX10 or Canon G9X provide imaging that we could only dream about 5 years ago.

 

It is truly a great time to be a photographer.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the $6000 Full-Frame Leica M10 coming in only 1 point ahead of the $750 Sony APS-C A6300 on the DxoMark sensor tests, The argument over DSLR or compact ILC mirrorless is essentially moot IMHO. Any modern higher-end mirrorless or DSLR will provide excellent imaging with the only factor left being personal preference. Even the latest cameras with the 1" sensors like the Sony RX100, RX10 or Canon G9X provide imaging that we could only dream about 5 years ago.

 

It is truly a great time to be a photographer.

 

Dave

 

Throw in.. "Even the latest phones..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done a similar tour (Princess unescorted). If you are doing 2 days in Denali with the extended tour a longer lens is a MUST and 2 bodies is a good idea.

 

Doing it now I would take my D500 with a rented 18-400 Tamron (awesome lens), my a6000 with a wide angle for landscape and a weather resistant point and shoot. (Back in 2009 when we went I had nothing but a borrowed Nikon with kit lenses)

 

While May/June is less active than full summer you still should see some pretty decent animals.

 

Sept 2009 -

 

 

With a 200mm, cropped, what I could do with a 400mm now..sigh..

 

DSC_3324_edited-1-X3.jpg

 

or this:

 

DSC_3319_edited-1-X3.jpg

But sometimes you get lucky:

 

DSC_3245_edited-1-X2.jpg

 

 

As you may have seen on another thread I took the 18-400 as a rental to Germany this year and I am buying one as soon as budget permits. One of the best multipurpose travel lenses I have ever used.

 

 

Thanks all. I'll probably end up taking most of the gear we have 'just in case'. Apart from the cruise we'll be on a Princess guided tour in Alaska for 8 nights end of May early June so not expecting a heap of wildlife at that time from what I've read. And on a tour with excursions I expect there won't be a lot of self time to wander off into the wilderness. One compact has a 30x zoom and the DSLR has a 10-24 wide as well as a general walkabout 18-140. Have been thinking about getting something like a 18-400. For extra extra wide I usually try a series and merge to a panoramic. Looking forward to it and I'm sure we'll enjoy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a great fan of The Great Courses and one of its coures is on Travel Photography taught by Bob Grist, a National Geographic photographer.

 

His travel kit? A Sony A6500 and a Sony RX10!

 

Seems to love thew Sony 1018mm zoom - (thanks Adam!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We just got back from Auckland, NZ, and they had weight limitations.

 

I've been to Alaska several times, and Denali you need as long a lens plus teleconverter. I took a Olympus with a crop factor that doubles the zoom. My 70-300 became 140-600, and I added my teleconverter to that.

 

For flying back from Auckland, I just had to seriously trim my camera kit. I had to take pesky stuff like medicine in original bottles instead . . .

 

So I took the 12-100 which was effectively 24-200. Even with our digital teleconverter. We did the scenic (Milford, Doubtful, Dusky Sounds) in New Zealand, and I didn't have enough zoom.

 

You should enjoy an extra long "golden hour" in Alaska.

 

I tried my new sun seeker app on the Noordam, and couldn't get a good enough connection for it to work except once.

 

Forgot to mention. I bracketed everything on our last trip. Came in very handy after my Lee Filter Holder broke, because once home I had the HDR any of my shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brought the 12-100mm (24-200mm) to Hubbard on our B2B, and it wasn't enough. So the second time we did Hubbard, I brought out our 75-300, and it looked so much better.

 

I have mobility issues, and wasn't up to the long walk back to our aft stateroom.

 

Radiance of the Seas windows are tinted, so all shots through the windows hit the reject pile at home. I didn't realize it at the time, because my eyes adapted. So, get outside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . Apart from the cruise we'll be on a Princess guided tour in Alaska for 8 nights end of May early June so not expecting a heap of wildlife at that time . . .

 

Loved our Princess cruise tour! I brought the 40-150mm (80-300mm) for Denali. That time, I had only the original kit lenses. We did the long bus tour. They only left us off the bus a few times, mostly bathroom breaks. I shot through the bus windows, and those doll sheep down on the slope looked like little specks.

 

I also took it to shoot bears (from the ship) feeding on a whale body that had washed up on shore that spring. Bears are huge, but next to the whale they looked like little matchbox figures.

 

White Pass Railroad I'd suggest anything with the White Pass Railroad in Skagway. We've taken it nearly every trip!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
Most will say that a long zoom is critical for Alaska. Completely true if you want to capture wildlife.

But on the other hand -- when we were there, we had pouring rain every day we were on land. The wildlife all went into hiding. I had a long zoom, that I basically didn't even get to use. I did get a couple so-so eagle shots, but otherwise, I didn't touch my long zoom.

On the other hand -- I was using my ultrawide angle all the time.

 

So if you hope to make it a wildlife safari trip -- then you need the long zoom.

If you are mostly hoping to capture the breathtaking vistas.... ultrawide angle may be much more important that a long telephoto zoom.

 

I do think you'd be ok with a 1" sensor camera. Light may get challenging at times with lots of very overcast days.. but you should generally have enough light to make a 1" sensor work.

Hi Havoc,

Can you tell me what the specs was your wide angle lens?

Looking at purchasing one for Alaska although trying to keep the price reasonable. I have a Nikon 3400

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Havoc,

Can you tell me what the specs was your wide angle lens?

Looking at purchasing one for Alaska although trying to keep the price reasonable. I have a Nikon 3400

 

I shoot full frame. For the Nikon d3400, you’d be well served with the Nikon 10-20mm.

 

http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/01/25/the-two-lens-travel-solution/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...