What to buy and bring to Greenland?

[tobias_zimling_kristiansen]

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>I'm writing this question to get an idea about what other photographers would prefer.</p>

<p>I'm going to Greenland this summer, and I will of course be photographing a lot - both in small villages and out in the wild on a 3-day trip and so forth.</p>

<p>By now I have an EOS 40D body and these lenses:<br>

EF-S 10-22 mm/3.5-4.5<br>

50 mm/1.4<br>

70-200 mm/2.8L IS USM</p>

<p>I'm planing to buy a 7D and a 24-70/2.8L and because of this I have the possibility to have a lens on both bodies and then beeing able to avoid the time consuming shifting of lenses. The problem with this sollution is the added weight of the extra body.</p>

<p>So do you think the solution to prefer is just to bring one body and the lenses and save some kilos or to bring both bodies and enjoy the ekstra speed?</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Tobias</p>

[harold_motte]

<p>I took a similar set up to Alaska last June. The extra 4 to 5 lbs was not bothersome. I really did not need to take both bodies as far as knowing what I was going to be shooting each outing, but having a back up body was good insurance just in case.<br>

The only other thing I suggest is: IF you are planning on photographing wildlife then I would suggest<br>

a 100-400mm lens or at least at 1.4tc for your 70-200mm. The 200mm will not be long enough for wildlife.<br>

Best Wishes.</p>

 

[anders_carlsson]

<p>Is this a dedicated photo tour? If not, maybe a 1.4x converter and a G10/11? Like with safaris, they more gear you bring, the more you'll fiddle with it when you shouldn't.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>I'd bring some kind of backup, the 2nd body or something. I've had situations where either one body fails (or I drop it) or I get it in some state where I can't figure out why it's not shooting. It's nice to be able to switch and keep going and figure it out later. Especially if this is once in a lifetime.</p>

[suzanne_d]

<p>Last October I spent 2 1/2 wks. exploring the South Island of New Zealand by car. I brought a Canon 40d and a Canon XSi plus a Tamron 17-50, Canon 70-200 4.0 L, and a Tamron 11-18 WA. I find it to be such a hassle constantly changing lens so it was a real treat to have two camera bodies with lenses already attached. When I was on a difficult long mountain hike where weight was a big issue, I carried my XSI with the 17-50 plus a little Canon G9 pocket camera. I almost always tuck away my G9 in my pack as an extra camera because I've had the unfortunate experience of dropping my SLR on concrete and breaking it on a photo excursion! Never again will I go on a trip without a spare camera. It has saved me more than once since then.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>If weight is a concern you may consider selling the 10-22 and getting a 5D2 with the 24-105 instead of the 7D + 24-70. I find for travel the 5d2 with the 24-105 can cover just about anything. Keep your 70-200 on the 40d and you are set for just about anything.</p>

<p>If you really like the ultra wide get a 17-40 or 16-35 instead of the 24-105. Now you have 2 cameras, 2 lenses no lens changing. You can always take the 50 along if you are shooting at night.</p>

[tobias_zimling_kristiansen]

<p>Thank you for all the good advises! </p>

<p>I think the solution with a 1.4 TC "in the pocket" for my 70-200 could be a good idea. But how about the IQ?</p>

<p>I will think about the 5d2 - but I've heard a lot about the AF-problems, and I guess the 7D has got a quite nice AF ;)</p>

<p>What kind of tripod would you recommend?</p>

<p>I appreciate the great help - thank you!</p>

[dillan k]

<p>Tripod? The best advice that I could give is bring a light tripod. If you bring one, bring a tripod that you won't leave behind in the car. It'll be expensive, but if it's light enough, you'll use it. I use a Manfrotto 190CXPRO3, and combined with the Acratech ball head that I couldn't afford, you could have a relatively sturdy and very light rig. It'll hold my 5D and 100mm macro lens with ease. I have to say that I bought a cheaper Manfrotto head, and it's like a lead weight on top of my wonderfully light tripod. I should have sprung for the extra $200. Lesson learned. Don't cheap out! You'll regret it! You can get even better (and lighter) legs than I've got, but I think the Manfrotto legs that I bought are great. That's my $0.02 Canadian.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>I would add a tripod and definitly get a mid range zoom such as the 24-70 you are thinking about. For a 3 day trip I wouldn't bring the other body as a backup. If you want it to save time in switching lenses bring the second body. What is the likelyhood of it failing during your trip. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will think about the 5d2 - but I've heard a lot about the AF-problems, and I guess the 7D has got a quite nice AF ;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 5D is no worse than any other camera out there. Right after both were released there were reports of focus problems with the 7D and 5D. Now I seldom hear of any focusing problems. The 5D focus system is very similar to the one used on prior cameras such as your 40D. The 7D focus system is better, mainly for moving objects (for example bird in flight). For static objects you would probably not see any significant difference. </p>

<p>In any case if you get the 5D you would need a new wide angle lens and the mid range lens, tripod etc. For tripod I have a Bogen and it has worked for me very well. If you are concerned about weight they do sell carbon fiber tripods. For the head I have a Bogen 410 minigear head which is really good for for landscape work. It is a little heavy. I never liked ball heads</p>

[pbizarro]

<p>Another camera is a sensible option, but I would not buy any more lenses.</p>