Camera Observations on Cruise

[donnab52]

I am so excited to take pictures on my vacation!  I haven't been so excited for my photography for a couple years-so it will be fun to get started again.  I also am planning on trying a bunch of mobile photography and am excited about seeing what I get with that too.  I love being in the "zone" when taking pictures. 🙂

[pierces]

On 3/11/2022 at 7:20 PM, donnab52 said:

Your pictures are amazing!  Did you use a tripod on the ship?  I feel like it won't be worth it.  Also, on the excursions-at least the helicopter ones-you cannot bring a bag.  I was thinking of bringing my 25-70 lens.  Do you think that would be adequate?

 

Thank you!

 

I used to pack a tripod but after about a dozen trips without using it, I gave up. Now I just bring a small monopod (which I haven't used much at all) and a tiny tabletop tripod (also mostly unused). If you are talking about Alaska, the medium zoom would be good for a helicopter excursion and landscapes but wouldn't do for wildlife, which is usually fairly distant. 

 

Dave

[eileeshb]

I tend to use my phone and a CSC when travelling, my dSLR kit is very much only used for sports.

However I do have an Alaska cruise booked for next year and I’m probably going to spend the next year deciding which camera kit to bring with me. My CSC is a Panasonic lumix GM1 so it’s a super compact piece of kit and I’ve a telephoto lens for it along with the kit lens which has a much wider angle capability than anything I have for the dSLRs. But the wildlife potential on the Alaska cruise has me considering hauling the dSLR kit along for that trip. 
 

are you allowed to use monopods on the excursion boats in Alaska? I prefer to have one when I’m using my longer lenses. 

[pierces]

8 hours ago, eileeshb said:

 

are you allowed to use monopods on the excursion boats in Alaska? I prefer to have one when I’m using my longer lenses. 

 

Tripods are frowned upon, but I've never had anybody complain about a monopod as long as I wasn't whacking ankles and shins with it. I (seldom) use a small twist-to-lock model that collapses and extends quickly and easily.

 

Dave

[TheOldBear]

17 hours ago, eileeshb said:

I tend to use my phone and a CSC when travelling, my dSLR kit is very much only used for sports.

However I do have an Alaska cruise booked for next year and I’m probably going to spend the next year deciding which camera kit to bring with me. My CSC is a Panasonic lumix GM1 so it’s a super compact piece of kit and I’ve a telephoto lens for it along with the kit lens which has a much wider angle capability than anything I have for the dSLRs. But the wildlife potential on the Alaska cruise has me considering hauling the dSLR kit along for that trip. 
 

are you allowed to use monopods on the excursion boats in Alaska? I prefer to have one when I’m using my longer lenses. 

You may consider renting or purchasing a more advanced micro four thirds body with in body image stabilization. That should eliminate the need for a tripod (except for special cases like light painting, or some high resolution modes). 

[eileeshb]

On 3/17/2022 at 12:38 PM, TheOldBear said:

You may consider renting or purchasing a more advanced micro four thirds body with in body image stabilization. That should eliminate the need for a tripod (except for special cases like light painting, or some high resolution modes). 

I already have a canon 7d and a 7d mark II so I won’t be buying anymore camera bodies for the foreseeable future. The only camera I have on my wish list at the moment is an underwater model with zoom.

 

I rarely (if ever) use a tripod, I’d only use it for video or on a cliff top when using a giant lens in Irish gale force winds. I do not need a monopod for the CSC, it’s the bigger lenses with the dSLR kit that has me using a monopod. I usually use the dSLR kit pitchside at rugby games, and I found the monopod handy for the long lenses. 

[GUT2407]

For me it is always worth taking a “real” camera, I only use my phone camera when I haven’t got a real camera with me, the photo is to be posted on social media only, saves the step of transferring to the computer, or is simply to remember something (time or price normally).

 

But I gave a mate who primarily shoots commercial work and he has shot advertising work on iPhones (6 from memory) needed something really thin to fit in a space, the phone did it.

[cdwise]

For me it depends on the cruise. A short Caribbean cruise I'm likely to just take my iPhone pro. That is usually all I use onboard the shipunless there is something special I want to photograph.  I did use the DSL going through the Panama Canal.  Alaska, New Zealand,  Cannon7D Mark II with 3-4 lenses.  We are going up the Norweign Fyords in May and are debating which lenses to take for it. But we are also taking a 360 action camera and probably a GoPro as well since we will be hiring a narrowboat in the UK before returning home. Great Barrier Reef a camera that is waterproof or housing for DSR. 

[Host Bonjour]

On 4/4/2022 at 1:52 AM, GUT2407 said:

shoots commercial work and he has shot advertising work on iPhones (6 from memory) needed something really thin to fit in a space, the phone did it.

 

The interesting thing is, it can be done. It obviously won't do certain things, but then a lot of cameras won't do things that high end Canon's, Leicas, Sonys etc will do. Films and video are shot on iPhone, it's kind of amazing.

 

I've done deep dives once the better quality cameras started happening on iPhone, probably around the 6 and beyond, which I think was when Apple did a photography promo for, looking for features in the phone that no one else was talking about, including going to the Apple Store for a class to see if I was missing out on anything I couldn't find by tapping my way through in the earlier iterations. It made a difference in how I could experiment in the phone.

 

I have a friend that does hi-tech reviews and gets access to some really cool products, some cameras aren't made or sold here (and probably not in Europe as much anymore either) but in his testing I've seen images and products that were astounding. Hasselblad had an accessory that attached to, I think it was a Motorola phone (some android or another) that was unbelievable, and it wasn't even that ridiculously priced. 

 

If you integrate a tripod, rig, some lights or whatever, you can rock and roll with an iPhone or smartphone. Is it ideal for cruising? It's like cdwise said, depends on the cruise, and for a photographer, the shoot. Remember how most shoots would start with test shots on polaroid?  

 

I don't have as much time these days but have heard a lot of cool anecdotes on photography podcasts about phone shoots, traditional cameras and using automatic settings vs manual, it gets interesting. Nice to have better options, though it's still good to know the reasons why the metrics matter, depth of field, lighting, exposure, shutter speed, etc. when it counts. 

[cdwise]

Most people don't realize that you can have as much control over you iPhone (probably the better quality android phones as well) as you can with a DSLR if you use Lightroom to take your photo and set it to Pro mode. There are other apps like Halide that give you full control as well. I've seen some amazing commercial and artistic photos done using an iPhone Pro. Go watch some of the Adobe Max sessions on using an iPhone from last year. They are online and free. 

 

Mobile Photography Tips and Tricks

 

Smartphone Photography with Lightroom

 

Mobile Magic: Powering Up Your Mobile Photography Game

Edited April 10, 2022 by cdwise

[pierces]

I'll start off by saying that my current phone doesn't match the image quality or versatility of my cameras. I'll follow that up by saying that I really don't have 10,000ft² of wall space to hang prints, so my main avenue for sharing and enjoying my photos is on the web. That gets followed by noting that in most casual situations where I used to carry a good compact camera or chose to lug the big guns along anyway, my current phone is more than up to the task of providing excellent detail and quality with a wide range of controls available in a (the surprisingly rare) situation that its AI can't handle a mix of light or I simply want to change the look.

 

The brightness, contrast and white balance controls available at first touch to focus provide all the adjustment most non-auto situations will ever call for. A quick tap lets me set the mostly unused flash if needed. My favorite controls are the 16mm - 105mm equivalent optical range provided by the three camera modules. Digital zoom with AI enhancement is pretty good these days but having an optical range like that makes this phone more of a camera than most of the compacts I have owned. 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong. I really enjoy using a "real" camera and there are many, many situations where a phone, no matter how capable, just falls short. On our last little 4-day, the phone was all I took and since it is unlikely that we will be doing any extensive touring, it will probably be true for our upcoming little 5-day to Cabo.

 

This shot of my son giving his sermon was taken today from about 50 feet away in stage lighting. No retouch.

 

Not perfect, but not bad either.

 

With all these tools, it is a great time to be a photographer!

 

Dave

 

 

[kochleffel]

On 12/30/2021 at 7:39 AM, pierces said:

After thinking about this a bit more, I thought I would add that while I saw only two "real" cameras on the little 4-day we were just on, the count on the Alaskan itinerary we did in July was much, much higher with a lot of pretty serious equipment.

 

Dave

 

My experience was the same. I was happy that I brought a DSLR (but mine is a micro 4/3, so a bit smaller than many) and various lenses. But for a Greek islands cruise next month, I may take a compact superzoom, a Lumix DC-ZS80. I also took a small waterproof camera to Alaska, but the raft trip that I wanted it for was cancelled because there was - wait for it - too much water.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by kochleffel

[dylan400d]

I have taken my DLSR on every cruise over the past 14 years and it has been to every port off the ship with very few exceptions. The one being Almeria, where there wasn't anything there, so instead of lugging it around I decided to use my iPhone, in Split my wife and I were on a Kayaking adventure, therefore we used a Go pro, and more recently when we went helmet diving in the Caribbean, we used my Olympus TG5 to get some great under water shots. 

 

I have, many times, considered leaving my Canon behind. It's an old 400D which only takes 10 mega pixel photographs. Most of the modern day camera phones will easily out megapixel my camera, however, with a 24mm pancake lens, which can shoot sharp images at f2.8, and go up to 3200 ISO (with a push) then I will try to take it with me. 

 

I am currently looking at changing the camera, just because I have a 4-month-old who is quite active and would like something with a higher FPS. I wish I could just use an iPhone for everything, but it's just not the same. Until larger sensors are used in phones, I am going to try and persevere with the DSLR. My main thing that I am looking at is cutting down my camera entourage and using one camera and a lens. I tried this years ago with my 400d and used an 18-200 but found that image quality suffered, therefore I bought a 24mm prime which stays on the camera most of the time. Through work I have used of a Sony A6400 which is great for bursts, but there's something that I quite like about my Canon. Maybe it's part of the family?

[bigrednole]

I had a Sony a6400 and hated it. I could never get a steady shot with it unless I was shooting at 1000 speed. I loved how my Olympus always had very steady shots with IBIS but there were things on it I missed from my old Canon dslr. After going to 3 camera shops, each pushing their own preferred brand, I bought the Panasonic G2. I really wanted the Sony a3, but it was $1000 more and lenses are much more expensive. I got the G2, 12-140 lens, and a 25 f1.7 lens for $1000. The camera body alone for the s3 (at the time) was near $2,000. 

 

I love shooting with the G2. Size, weight, IBIS are all great. Customizing the dials to what I was use to on the my old Canon was great. Yes, higher ISO and dark images have more noise in them. However, DXO's DeepPrime solves that insanely. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by bigrednole

[pierces]

3 hours ago, bigrednole said:

I had a Sony a6400 and hated it. I could never get a steady shot with it unless I was shooting at 1000 speed.

 

You need to lay off the caffeine... 🙂

 

I shot thousands of photos at 1/60s and below with both the A6000 and A6300 and non-stabilized lenses and had a remarkably high hit rate. However, you are correct when you say stabilization makes life easier and shooting with the stabilized 16-50PZ and later the 18-105 f/4 were my go-to for general photography. When I picked up the A6600 with its in-body stabilization, low shutter speeds became much easier to manage with all lenses since Sony uses both lens and body-based stabilization in concert. It really opened up the possibilities for the fully manual Rokinon 8mm fisheye and 12mm ultra-wide. 

 

My recommendation for a small travel kit would be an A6600 with the stabilized 18-135 zoom. Very compact and the 18-135 is sharp and covers 95% of focal lengths used for general photography. The inexpensive Rokinon 12mm f/2 could be added for wide shotsFor wildlife I would recommend the 70-300 FE lens which gives an effective 105-450 focal length. (I use it to shoot our grandson's hockey games and the dual stabilization along with the A6600's fantastic autofocus really delivers.)

 

My 4¢... (up from 2¢ due to inflation)

 

Dave

[tommui987]

On 5/4/2022 at 3:46 AM, pierces said:

 

You need to lay off the caffeine... 🙂

 

I shot thousands of photos at 1/60s and below with both the A6000 and A6300 and non-stabilized lenses and had a remarkably high hit rate. However, you are correct when you say stabilization makes life easier and shooting with the stabilized 16-50PZ and later the 18-105 f/4 were my go-to for general photography. When I picked up the A6600 with its in-body stabilization, low shutter speeds became much easier to manage with all lenses since Sony uses both lens and body-based stabilization in concert. It really opened up the possibilities for the fully manual Rokinon 8mm fisheye and 12mm ultra-wide. 

 

My recommendation for a small travel kit would be an A6600 with the stabilized 18-135 zoom. Very compact and the 18-135 is sharp and covers 95% of focal lengths used for general photography. The inexpensive Rokinon 12mm f/2 could be added for wide shotsFor wildlife I would recommend the 70-300 FE lens which gives an effective 105-450 focal length. (I use it to shoot our grandson's hockey games and the dual stabilization along with the A6600's fantastic autofocus really delivers.)

 

My 4¢... (up from 2¢ due to inflation)

 

Dave

 

[tommui987]

In my last cruise (2019) pre-Covid 19,  which was a Amsterdam-Norway-Rome trip, I had my Sony A6600 with the 18-135mm as a primary lens. Great camera combo!

[Reagan0712]

On 12/29/2021 at 7:27 AM, pierces said:

To contrast that, we went on an Alaska cruise earlier this year and I took both cameras and 5 lenses and it was fantastic-er. 🙂

 

Photos here: https://pptphoto.com/galleries/Travel/Cruising/2021 Alaska/index.html

Loved your pictures! They are positively gorgeous.

I’m going to be doing a HAL Land/Sea in early June. Denali, Whitehorse, Dawson, and then to ship, Skagway to Vancouver.  The plan is to take my two camera bodies, Canon T6i and T2i.  On the T2i I plan to us my EFS 18-55mm lens.  The T6i is where I’m not sure which lens would be best for Alaska.  I have an EF 100-400mm and an EF 75-300mm. I also have a monopod that I’m planning on taking along.  I just not sure if there will be enough situations that will warrant taking that heavy 400.

I have a good camera with my phone, Samsung S10e, which takes great pics that I use around the ship.

[kbnovak]

On 5/5/2022 at 5:06 PM, tommui987 said:

In my last cruise (2019) pre-Covid 19,  which was a Amsterdam-Norway-Rome trip, I had my Sony A6600 with the 18-135mm as a primary lens. Great camera combo!

I use this same combo for a somewhat "all-around" setup.

[den32837]

When we travel, my photos are my souvenirs. The best shots end up as canvas prints on the walls at home. We have Antelope Canyon, Amsterdam, Rome, Washington DC, New York City, Neuschwanstein, Stonehenge, Monument Valley, Zaanse Schans windmills, Bar Harbor Maine, and Alaska whales and eagles on the walls. With 32 up, not much space remains.

I have the cell phone and a compact $100 Canon along, mostly for snapshots on board and shots of friends, while I use a Canon 70D for photographs off ship. Favorite lenses include a Tamron 18-400, which fetched wonderful shots of eagles on blue icebergs in Alaska and the Statue of Liberty on approach to NY harbor,  and a Tokina 11-16 which nailed my all-time-favorite shot at Stonehenge, and comes in handy in museums and other close-quarters venues.

The fact is, though, if you have a decent eye, get a good composition and have the requisite sharpness of image, many different cameras will suffice. Example: during this pandemic, while we were unable to travel, I dug out some old film shots, exposed in 1971 in DC and while stationed in Germany in the early 80s, digitized them , used modern computer photo-editing software and came up with wonderful prints for the wall,  of Washington DC monuments and Mad King Ludwig's castle.  They were originally shot with a Fujica ST-701 SLR. on Kodachrome. 

For the folks satisfied with only a cell phone camera, I will say the most pitiful sight I ever witnessed was my fellow passengers trying to shoot the Statue Of Liberty (at distance) from a cruise ship with a cell phone

 

.

[PurpleHays]

On 5/4/2022 at 9:46 AM, pierces said:

My recommendation for a small travel kit would be an A6600 with the stabilized 18-135 zoom. Very compact and the 18-135 is sharp and covers 95% of focal lengths used for general photography.

I have a Sony A7III with an 18-135 lens right now. This lens, along with an 18-55 kit lens were the only ones that made the transition from my A37. I will get lots of play with it on our fall TA.

 

Next goal: to save up and purchase more lenses, especially a telephoto.

[den32837]

A 135 works well for portraits, but I find I cannot beat a range like the Tamron 18-400. It is on my Canon most of the time while traveling, as it handles everything from mild wide angle to tele w zoom, and very good image quality. When traveling, you can't beat that flexability w/o having to carry a full camera bag w extra lenses. You can be off ship w just the camera on a strap and handle almost any photo opportunity you discover. And...on a crop-sensor camera, the max range is equivalent to 640mm!

[pierces]

19 hours ago, PurpleHays said:

I have a Sony A7III with an 18-135 lens right now. This lens, along with an 18-55 kit lens were the only ones that made the transition from my A37. I will get lots of play with it on our fall TA.

 

Next goal: to save up and purchase more lenses, especially a telephoto.

 

Keep in mind that the 18-135 and 18-55 A-mount lenses with the SAM autofocus motors were designed for the APS-C sensor on the A37. When attached to the A7III full-frame camera using the LA-EA3 adapter (for SAM and SSM lenses), they will function and focus well but the image circle may not completely cover the full-frame sensor causing darkened edges and even black corners at most focal lengths. 

 

Dave

Edited May 13, 2022 by pierces

[PurpleHays]

6 hours ago, pierces said:

 

Keep in mind that the 18-135 and 18-55 A-mount lenses with the SAM autofocus motors were designed for the APS-C sensor on the A37. When attached to the A7III full-frame camera using the LA-EA3 adapter (for SAM and SSM lenses), they will function and focus well but the image circle may not completely cover the full-frame sensor causing darkened edges and even black corners at most focal lengths. 

 

Dave

I did have that problem with the 18-135 and it p***** me off because only *one* lens transferred. However, I did spend some $$ and get a user's guide. I was going page by page and learning all the (gazillion new) functions and found a setting that converts the APS-C to full-frame. Well, technically I think it crops it down, but it eliminates the black corners. That one find alone made up for the cost of the book. $40 book vs $1300 lens.  I still want to buy an actual lens that doesn't need to use the adapter, but that will be the end-of-year OT at work.

[pierces]

16 hours ago, PurpleHays said:

I did have that problem with the 18-135 and it p***** me off because only *one* lens transferred. However, I did spend some $$ and get a user's guide. I was going page by page and learning all the (gazillion new) functions and found a setting that converts the APS-C to full-frame. Well, technically I think it crops it down, but it eliminates the black corners. That one find alone made up for the cost of the book. $40 book vs $1300 lens.  I still want to buy an actual lens that doesn't need to use the adapter, but that will be the end-of-year OT at work.

 

Setting the crop mode drops you to about 10-12 MP, but though this eliminates the ability to crop (already cropped), the images are still pretty good. I strongly suggest that when the time comes, you look at the 24-105 f/4 G. I leave that lens on my A7III literally 99% of the time. It covers a huge slice of what you need for everyday and travel photography and is also very sharp. What really indicates that this lens is a winner is that KEH has no used units in stock. Definitely a keeper.

 

Dave