Alaska cruise: M gear or Nikon SLR?

[jorge]

Hi folks!

 

First, an apology for being AWOL so long... been busting my ass trying to make

up for my intelligence deficiency. :-)

 

Now, VW of Mexico is taking me on a dealer convention to Alaska on a cruise from

Seattle and back. We shall be visiting a couple of glaciers and four cities,

Juneau, Sitka, Ketchikan and Victoria (Canada).

 

I haven't the foggiest as to what photo ops I may find and I'm torn between

taking a pair of M's with lenses ranging from 20 to 90, or a pair of manual

Nikkis (FM2n's) for which I have most any focal length from 17 to 400. I'd

prefer not to lug a ton of gear and on most of my trips I've found wides most

used, with occasionally a short tele to isolate a view and a superwide for some

very close quarters. However, in this case something tells me I might need

longish lenses the most. What do you think?

 

Any insights much appreciated.

 

PS, I'm also debating on getting my first interchangeable lens digital camera.

I've handled the D200 and hated it but I've got lotsa glass. The M8 is also an

option if I get a second mortgage. Comments?

[jay_chadney]

I find a lot of Alaskan cruise ops are from a tipod from the cabin deck. I would take everything you have. You can just keep it all accessible oin your cabin and use wht you want. Use the SLR on the tripod for when you cruise the inside passage and up to Sawyer Glacier. It would be good on any excursions as well.

 

Use the M for when you go into towns (non-adventure excursions). There are people pictures galore - both of tourists and locals.

 

Jay

[john_camp]

I rode a ferry from Alaska to Washington State two summers ago, and you have to

remember (unless you're shooting friends on board) that on a ship you're already pretty far

away from things -- in the middle of a channel, and high above the water. Even a 90

would be short for shooting whales (since you can't tell where they're going to pop up, and

usually it's some distance from the ships...hundreds of meters.) There are lots of great

bird shots, but those are almost always long, too. On board there might be some nice wide

shots...and there are some nice wides in the towns. (The towns are almost entirely built

around tourist shops for cruise ships; they make Cancun look like an authentic Mayan

village by comparison.) If you're going to look at the glacier outside of Juneau, the viewing

stand is now about a mile from the end of the thing; it's been melting like an ice cube in a

glass of scotch...The landscape, however, is spectacular, and the sunsets are even more

spectacular. I have both M Leicas and a D2x. I had the Nikon with me on the trip, and a

good thing, too, because the longer lenses really came in handy. If I had to take only two

lenses, I'd take a good short zoom (like 17-35) and a longer one (80-300). Because most

of what you'll be shooting will be really short (on board) or really long, the middle focal

lengths are not so useful. Might tuck away a small fast 50mm prime...

JC

[kens]

Agree with John - a short zoom and a long zoom for this trip.

[robert_edge]

Jump ship in Victoria, spend a week on Vancouver Island, and rent a car for the wonderful drive through Washington State to Seattle to catch the plane back. Make sure that you have a telephoto for some of the stuff that you'll see in that area, such as eagles and killer whales.

[david_clark4]

Take at least one camera that you are willing to use in the rain and mist.

[r22eng]

Jorge,

 

Enjoy the cruise! The inner passage cruise is fantastic.

 

A digital SLR provides the most flexibility. I used a Nikon D70 and a FM as a back-up. The 18-70mm got the majority of the work load mounted on a D70. The 200-400mm (with monopod) was used for landscapes from the ship. Recommend only taking the short telephoto on the digital on excursions where you are kayaking or paddling on the bay or lake. Some of the best glaicer shots were from a kayak or canoe excursion.

 

Most passangers wait until the last minute to return from excursions. The queue to reboard the ship is slow as people wait to get through security and have their belongings x-rayed.

 

If you like wide angle shots go with the M. If you want close-ups of glaciers, peaks, bears, moose, seals, birds, etc., from the ship go with a long lens (greater than 200mm). Most of your time will be on the ship looking at the scenery around you as you travel up or down the inner passage.

 

For example, you will be on the ship and watch the Glaciers calving. The visual impact of parts of the Glacier falling into the water is lost if you have a lens that is less than 100mm.

 

Whatever you decide, bring lots of memory cards and film.

 

Ricky

[andrew1]

Hmm. For a once in a lifetime event like that, I'd shoot film. I'm still not satisfied with

digital, and it's not about some tired "film vs. digital" debate. For me it's these points: I

really love good silver prints; my digital skills pale in comparision to my 20 years with

film; and finally, working with digital doesn't excite me the way working in film does.

Shooting is the same- nothing else is. <p>I shoot with the same sort of gear you

mention- I do weddings with three to five Leica lenses and two bodies, and two to four

Nikon lenses and one or two FM2's, with a D70 backup. (Digital aside- my preference for

film notwithstanding, I'm thinking of moving from the D70 to the D80, for the bigger,

brighter finder and slightly smaller camera size and weight.) But I don't like to travel with

much gear. Certianly the first camera I would leave at home is the digital. <p>A couple of

years ago, I took a trip (to Bavaria) and established my current travel kit; an Olympus XA

and a Leica M with 50mm and 21mm lenses. This works out great, and is a good range to

shoot with. I think I'd also take a telephoto on a trip like you describe. <p>Travel safely,

pack light, and have fun.

[christian hilmersen www.]

The obvious answer would be to take the Nikon. I would say take the camera you enjoy shooting with. For me that would be a rangefinder and a 50mm. I have plenty of other equipment, but I quite often find that the equipment gets in way of the experience....and that even though I might get more "good" pictures using more flexible equipment, I end up getting more "very good" pictures when I limit myself. If you really shoot a lot, I am sure you can deal with more equipment. I think the first picture in the <a href"http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/aa-07-worked.shtml">What Worked? What didn't?</a> article on luminous landscape is a great example of the type of photography I really hate - as a non-professional photografer, the photography is second to the experience. I think the <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/ND-m8-aa.shtml">"Iceberg gravyard"</a> picture is the best picture in there - and it is taken with a rangefinder...so nature pictures with a rangefinder is possible, but maybe not ideal. Personally I switched to a rangefinder after a trip to west Norway. I got som good pictures of puffins - but you have seen similar things before - and I ended up leaving the slr and just enjoying the scenery and taking pictures with an Olympus mju.

[mikep]

The long and short; I would take my Nikon for scenics, and the Leica for walking the town/city.

[david k.]

Take a SLR and at least one long lens, you won't be all that close to the Glaciers from the ship. When ashore a rangefinder would work, but one SLR a few lenses is the easiest kit.

[vic_.]

Hi Jorge, I have nothing to add.

 

I still like this picture of yours very much, it brightens up my dark winter days:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/1232246

 

And you have a spectacular portfolio:

 

http://www.photo.net/photos/Jorge

 

I too am a Nikon manual focus loyalist. What don't you like about the D200? I'm debating between the D200 and the Fuji S5. Here are some recent discussions:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KK5k&tag=

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KKj6&tag=

 

Best wishes on your Alaska trip!

[bob in seattle]

Having cruised to Alaska with a Contax RX and lenses fro 21mm to 300 f4, I can tell you that no lens will be "too long". Do bring a tripod, as light can change due to mist, fog or sudden cloud cover.

 

I shot mostly Kodak Gold 200.

 

In my little Contax T2, I shot Gold 400 for people shots on the ship or in town, and a roll of Kodak E100 slide film for the trip back in sunny weather.

 

If you only carry one camera, bring the SLR and a least one long lens.

 

300mm was often too short for some shots, as it turned out.

 

 

Bob in Seattle

[tomchuk]

I agree. Having cruised the coast of BC for the past few summers, my only advice would be, bring the longest lens you can. I had a 80-400 VR on my D70 80% of the time, and most of my favorites were captured at 400mm (that's 600mm equiv). For stuff on the boat or around town, a rangefinder and a 50 was fine for me.<div></div>

[jonathan_reynolds]

I've done the Inside Passage cruise too, and John Camp hit the nail on the head about focal lengths. Even when humpback whales come out of the sea apparently right alongside you will need 90 mm or more. Of course you'll appreciate the wide and normal lengths if you stop at the towns.

 

When I made the trip, I took a Nikon FE with 55mm and 105mm. That combination was just fine. But stupidly I had left the exposure compensation dial on +1 stop for the entire trip, so I have the world's best photos of bleached whales.

 

Nowadays I would take my Leica, feast my eyes on the scenery, store the unforgettable images in my head, and photograph the people on the boat.

[jerry_kirkwood]

<i>I'd prefer not to lug a ton of gear</i><p>Then take the Nikons cause you can cover everything the Leica can plus the tele.<p><i>I've handled the D200 and hated it but I've got lotsa glass.</i><p>Then get a Canon 5D. You can fit most of your Nikkors on it (have to stop down manually and may have to whittle a rear shroud or two)until you can sell them. The Canon lenses are as good or better, if you stay away from the cheap zooms (same with Nikon).<p><i> The M8 is also an option if I get a second mortgage. Comments?</i><p>No comment {grin}

[jorge]

Guys, a thousand thanks for the wealth of insight. The great thing about this forum is that it's never short of valuable -and experienced- information.

 

You are steering me towards a decision I was trying to avoid: lugging two separate sets of equipment. As you may grasp from my "eclectic" portfolio, I don't have a definite style and am a sort of catch-as-catch-can guy. I really don't shoot digital and only have a small Pentax Optio P&S and an aging Minolta 7i that I hate because of its tormenting shutter lag so for going the pixel way I'd have to get me a D200 but it's bulky, heavy and complex. Much like my F90X elevated to the fourth.

 

Right now, my first conclusion would be to forgo the Leicas, much as I may regret it, and take just the two FM2's, one for color and the other for B&W; stuff them inside one of my largest Medium or Large Format bags and take an array of lenses. A wide 75~35 zoom, a midrange 28~80 fast zoom and a long 200~400 zoom plus a 1.5X TC. I may even convince myself to lug an extra pair of lenses, a fast 35/1.4 or the beautiful CV Ultron 40/1.7 plus a Macro 100. I think that would cover most anything I might need.

 

What kind of tripod would you advise? I have a very light Belvon that handles a light 35 well but it would be taxed with the long lenses. OTOH, I have a serious (read: medium sized) tripod that can handle a heavy MF SLR with ease, but it's a backbreaker.

 

Would you recommend that I take two AF cameras instead of the FM2s? I have a F90X and a N50 that could replace the manual SLR's but they represent yet more bulk and weight. Baring some bird shots I wonder what I may need them for, as my guess is that most woldlife shots would be made at infinity.

 

Again, many thanks in advance for anything that you may add to this already nourishing cumulus of experience.

 

PS, Vic; many thanks on the undeserved kudos. Take care!

[jorge]

To Bob Shaw:

 

Bob, I see you're in Seattle. I should be arriving in the mid-afternoon and board the cruise on the next day. Is there any commendable place where I may pick a D200 should I convince myself I need it? ;-) I rather pay the WA sales tax than the stiff Mexican import duties.

[paulr]

Jorge,

 

Just in case Bob does not see this. I recommend Glazers Camera. He may have another

recommendation in Seattle.

 

http://www.glazerscamera.com/

 

Saludos amigo

 

Paul

[r22eng]

Jorge

 

You may want to consider one Digital (D70 or D200) and one FM. This way you can still shot color and BW film. Space and weight limitations made me decide to go with one system. Prefer shooting with Ms. However, the lack of a lens beyond 135mm made me decide on the SLRs. A 35 or 50 f1.4 would be a good third lens to add to your short and long zoom kit. Go with a heavy tripod if you use the long zoom on the FM and 100 DIN or slower film.

 

I am surprised no one suggested the R9 with the DMR back.

[frederick_muller]

Bring at least one M and one Nikon. Use the M for wides and up to 90mm, and bring the Nikon with 135, 180, or 400mm lenses. The last time I went on a cruise, I deliberately brought M's and a 135mm because I thought I would need more "reach" from the cruiser to the shore. In retrospect it worked out very well. There were times I wished I had an SLR and 180mm or longer lens.

 

Since then, I've picked up a 180mm f2.8 ED Nikkor to complement an old 300mm f5.6 mirror lens I've had for years. Next time I go on a trip like the one you describe, I will carry primarily rangefinder equipment, but will also carry the SLR with the longer lenses as a complement.

[george_b1]

Experience from two trips on the Inland Waterway - and on small to slightly larger cruise ships (100-300 passengers).

 

If you have a Minilux / CM or equivalent P&S that you can put in your pocket, take it for the on-shore "expeditions" down rivers and onto glaciers, plus the shots in Juneau, Sitka, Ketchikan. For shooting wildlife, Alaskan scenery and glacier calving from the boat, an SLR with LONG lenses is almost mandatory.

 

I do have one gentle caution about using a tripod and long lenses while the ship is moving and/or while the engines are running - - - the vibrations from the ship's engines and propeller cavitation can be transmitted through the ship to the deck from where you are shooting. Also, the "wind over deck" from the ship's movement can be an issue. Result - -blurry slides. (Know that, been there, got the T-Shirt!)

 

A shoulder/stock gadget for the SLR might be better, as your body will act as a damper for the ship's vibrations, and you can "roll with the punch" to compensate for the wind The results mighy not be as pristine as those obtained via a tripod on terra firma; however, they will probably be better than a deck-moiunted tripod that has to damp out both the ship vibrations and the wind flow over the deck as the ship moves.

 

Cheers, and take three times as much film as you believe you'll need!

 

George (The Old Fud)

[michael s.]

Nothing to add on the gear choices, Jorge. But I do look fwd to seeing your Alaska photos.

[tri-x1]

As someone else pointed out, the nice thing about an Alaskan Cruise is you can take a ton of gear because when you are under way you are never more than 800 feet from your cabin. When we went last year I took a Nikon F4 (heavy) an FM backup and five lenses. You might want a RF with a WA for when you are off ship. If we were to go again I would take the DSLR acquired since the last trip.

[jorge]

Folks,

 

Paul: Tks for the heads-up on Glazers. Prices look fine and I'll contact them in advance if I decide it's high time for a DSLR, which, BTW, would solve the two film stocks dilemma.

 

Ricky: If I getme a DSLR I'll take at least one M to complement the array.

 

Michael: I'm leaving May 11 and should be back home around the 20 or 21. I'll start uploading as soon as I get the chance to hit the darkroom and scanners -unless I plunge for the DSLR.

 

Wayne: You make me rethink my original stand against "too much gear". It seems that as long as I can lug it to the plane cabin that's an oximoron. I'll start laying gear on bags and see what I can cram into a single bag, even if its a backbreaker.

 

Frederick: An M with two wides, say a 20 and a 35 in addition to one SLR with longish lenses sounds in theory very nice, but that would force me into shooting just color and then go the length of producing digital negs for those shots I'd like in B&W. Reflecting on that, it dawns on me that if I go the DSLR way, I'd have to do either that or be content with the -to my tastes inferior- look and feel of digital B&W prints. OTOH, contact negatives on fiber paper done in the darkroom are something else. You have to see them to appreciate 'em.

 

George: I have a pocketable but capable Contax T3 that might in some ways stand in for an M, specially for candids and it doesn't intimidate subjects. Loaded with 400TX or HP5+ it's a veritable killer. Re tripod, I have a Leica table tripod that doubles real nice as a shoulder stock but I've never used with a 400, not to say a 600 which is what my 200~400 plus 1.5x TC would become. Actually, I doubt anyone can handhold a rig that long but I don't take bets. :-) Probably a beanbag -or just a sweater- proped on the handrail would be just as good as a tripod, given a fast film.

 

Yet again, the extra weight and bulk of two bodies, specially something as discrete as M?s or FM2's is something to think about. If I carry two M's with a couple of wides, say a 20 and a 35 for shooting about town and maybe just one SLR with long lenses for scenics and shooting from the boat, again say a 100, the 200~400 and the TC, and maybe this time it will be an AF one, I guess I should be able to cram everything into a largish bag. Maybe the one that usually handles my Rolleiflex 6K gear.

 

Jeez! Too many options... Not good to wise decisions. I must cool it.