Good plan for Alaska Cruise?

LV Moose wrote in post #17993019
Maybe it really IS rare, and we were just all there at the same time

Lol. It looks like you had better weather than we experienced, so I think that theory is out the window.

We also took a boat cruise through Misty Fjords National Monument, which presented some more whale watching opportunities -- albeit at it little further distance. Here is a shot of an orca whale -- with a little better weather conditions, too.

Thanks for all the advice. I will certainly consider swapping the 17-40 for the 24-105. Particularly if I rent the 14mm.

LMAO

They sure know how to play photographers with those rare whale feeding habbits

They probably have cages of fish below that they release

I went on an Alaskan cruise a couple years ago and I took a bunch of stuff with me but basically used 6d with 24-70 for landscape and on the boat and 70d with 100-400 for wildlife. I did use a 270exii flash as well. Didn't really touch anything else. It was amazing. Humpbacks orcas seals Eagles bears sled dogs and wild flowers Glaciers blue ice old towns mountains sunsets etc

If this has been mentioned, my apologies. Make sure you bring good rain gear for you and your camera. It rains almost every day along the coast. I brought the 100-400 and a 24-70 on two 5DIIIs (one borrowed) and never missed a shot.

Good suggestion, James. I brought along a couple of Optech rain sleeves for my camera bodies, and I needed them -- plus a raincoat for myself.

Rain gear is a good idea. When I went you could not wipe the smiles off the faces of our crew because we had unusually dry weather.

We got some rain on our first cruise, so before we went on our second, I bought a couple rain sleeves. We didn't get a drop the whole time. I was kinda bummed; being from Vegas, I was looking forward to a bit of precipitation.

Some time has passed so here is an update. I booked the 14mm and the 100-400. I think I will still be bringing the 35L. Trying to pack smart without having regrets.

5D3 w/14mm and M3 w/100-400 on day trips with 22mm and 24-105 in the bag.
5D3 w/35mm or 24-105 or M3 w/22mm or 18-55 around the ship.

Looking at that I feel pretty good about my choices. Probably leave the 35L in the bag on day trips too. Not that much more. Doubt I'll regret the 70-200 with the 100-400 in its place. Doubt I'll regret the 17-40 with the 14 and 35 combo. Hoping I don't regret not bringing the 85L and 135L, but they are pretty specialized and not well suited to a trip like this. They are my most used at home, which makes me nervous.

Less than a month to go! Holy cow!

I'm not sure how that M3 + 100-400L combo will work for wildlife -- especially if you do any whale watching. I own the original EOS M, and it certainly would not be up to the task. Whale watching demands a body with no shutter lag and quick auto focus, as you never quite know where the whales will surface and they will only be above water for a few seconds at a time. So, you need to be able to swing your camera into position, compose the shot, acquire AF lock and shoot very quickly.

I've been whale watching about a dozen times, and still remember the frustration of the one time I attempted it using a point & shoot Canon Powershot G3. After getting shots of the water after the whales had re-submerged numerous times, I finally gave up. My previous whale watching excursion had been with a film SLR, and subsequent trips were with a dSLR.

I find the best setup for whale watching is a dSLR with a high frame rate set to AI Servo, expanded center AF point, and mounted on a monopod. The monopod allows you to keep the camera closer to shooting position at all times. Most whale watching boats will not provide space for a tripod, but I was able to use a monopod on both excursions last time in Alaska.

I've yet to get to Alaska, but, based upon other wildlife/cruise experiences.... 24-105, rent a 400DO, take a monopod and a backup body, done. Batteries, chargers, and a checklist for all gear. I also bought a Peilican case, which was worth it more than I thought.

The reason is size and weight with protection.

The 100-400 I do own, and although tempting, I found it to be used almost always at 400 -- Landscapes, although they always sound so tempting, don't get to print as much as long glass shots seem to, for me. As for why 24, I sold all the glass wider than 24 after noticing not only was it just rarely used, but when it was used the results I could print were no better than 24 anyway. And when I really want that wide pano, I just stitch now.

You may ask why no tripod - but for shooting stars at night with a remote it was a major PIA and very rarely used.

Have fun!

I'd stick with the 24-105, 35, and the 100-400.

I would definitely not be using an anniversary cruise to learn the TS lens. I also don't know how useful I would consider the 14mm unless I was hell-bent on taking a ton of interior photos. Even then, I would probably make good use of the 17-40 and its smaller aperture for more DOF instead. As far as the tripod/monopod, I think the only place that is going to benefit you is for interior shots were you actually want the camera to move with the ship. Using it for outside shots is going to lead to more relative motion than if you were hand-holding and using your body for a damper as mentioned earlier in this thread. Not sure I would want to be "that guy" setting up a tripod anywhere inside the ship, but to each his own.

The decision that I would have a tough time making would be if I wanted a more all-purpose lens (24-105) to leave on the camera throughout the day, or if I wanted to have a more dedicated wide angle lens (17-40mm or 14mm). My own personal experience tells me I wouldn't need/want anything wider than 24mm for landscape work on a ship sitting in the middle of the ocean. Some people don't mind switching between multiple lenses, or carrying a bag of gear, but I find that sometimes having a single lens to use for an activity makes things a bit more fun. I'd likely end up with the 24-105 attached during the day, 35mm indoors and when the sun begins to set, and the 100-400mm and 35mm with me for when I was purposely going onto the deck looking to be a photographer.

And to contradict what I just said, you actually could keep those 3 lenses with you all day using a small shoulder bag...but I wouldn't.

mannetti21 wrote in post #18045252
I'd stick with the 24-105, 35, and the 100-400.

I would definitely not be using an anniversary cruise to learn the TS lens. I also don't know how useful I would consider the 14mm unless I was hell-bent on taking a ton of interior photos. Even then, I would probably make good use of the 17-40 and its smaller aperture for more DOF instead. As far as the tripod/monopod, I think the only place that is going to benefit you is for interior shots were you actually want the camera to move with the ship. Using it for outside shots is going to lead to more relative motion than if you were hand-holding and using your body for a damper as mentioned earlier in this thread. Not sure I would want to be "that guy" setting up a tripod anywhere inside the ship, but to each his own.

The decision that I would have a tough time making would be if I wanted a more all-purpose lens (24-105) to leave on the camera throughout the day, or if I wanted to have a more dedicated wide angle lens (17-40mm or 14mm). My own personal experience tells me I wouldn't need/want anything wider than 24mm for landscape work on a ship sitting in the middle of the ocean. Some people don't mind switching between multiple lenses, or carrying a bag of gear, but I find that sometimes having a single lens to use for an activity makes things a bit more fun. I'd likely end up with the 24-105 attached during the day, 35mm indoors and when the sun begins to set, and the 100-400mm and 35mm with me for when I was purposely going onto the deck looking to be a photographer.

And to contradict what I just said, you actually could keep those 3 lenses with you all day using a small shoulder bag...but I wouldn't.

A few things:

1. There are ports where you get off the ship for the day, so there will be landscape opportunities.
2. This cruise isn't in the middle of the ocean -- it's through Alaska's Inner Passage. For almost the entire cruise, you can see land.
3. The only places I used my UWA 16-35 f/4 IS were on the ship for interior shots, in a copper mill in Wrangell - St. Elias National Park (don't think he's going there, as it's not a port of call), and walking around town in Ketchikan (his ship may stop at that port). Otherwise, the 24-105L was used on the 5D3.
4. The only time I used a tripod on the cruise portion of the trip was while waiting for glaciers to calf in Glacier Bay National Park. That allowed me to keep my camera setup and ready for the action. Unfortunately I still wasn't able to capture a calving. Otherwise, the tripod was used around Denali National Park, which is not a port of call for the cruise, but is part of a separate land tour (the OP does not mention doing a land tour).
5. I found a monopod useful for our two whale watching excursions out of Juneau and Ketchikan -- both of which are ports on the cruise.

[QUOTE=Scott M;18045664]A few things:


4. The only time I used a tripod on the cruise portion of the trip was while waiting for glaciers to calf in Glacier Bay National Park. That allowed me to keep my camera setup and ready for the action. Unfortunately I still wasn't able to capture a calving.

You have to see the calving, to get the shot, by the time the sound reaches you it's over.

Tapeman wrote in post #18045727
You have to see the calving, to get the shot, by the time the sound reaches you it's over.

You are correct. And unfortunately I was distracted the one time the glacier calved on this trip, so didn't have time to capture the shot -- just see it with my own eyes. I did capture a calving on video during our previous Alaska cruise about 17 years ago.