don_schmidt

I had my equipment insured with State Farm. The price was amazingly low for the coverage; however, when the agent decided I was a pro, the rates skyrocketed. I now have my gear covered under a business all risks policy (another insurance company). Cost is 4 or 5 times what I had been paying, and the deductible is higher, but I don't have to worry that a claims representative will disallow my claim because I'm a pro, and it includes other types of liability insurance.

Jeremiah, With the use of any extension tube between the lens and the TC, I believe you can use any lens. Without the extension tube, I don't think you'll be able to use the Canon TCs with your 75-300 lens, nor with most other non-L series lenses. I think it's a matter of them not physically matching up. The Canon TCs protrude into rear of the lens, and most lenses simply do not have the room behind the rear element for the TC's protruding sleeve. I think there are other non-Canon TCs that will fit; of course then you'll have the problem of degrading picture quality.

I had a similar problem a couple years ago while returning from a trip to Alaska and got around it with the old "turn your jacket into a camera bag" trick. *lol* My Columbia shell must have weighed 40 pounds with all the pockets full, and it was bulging so much I couldn't wear it! But it worked! Security guys just shook their heads and grinned as I emptied the "pockets" of my jacket. Once on the plane I repacked it into my LowPro AW. It's horse manure to have to go through that, but it's better than checking it.

As others have said, it depends on what's in your bag now. I started my EOS system with a 35-105, then added a 100-300. That gave me a nice range. Then I added a 400mm 5.6 with a 1.4 TC and have now sold the 100-300 and replaced it with a 70-200 2.8. My pics are now just a little sharper, but my bag is a lot heavier and my wallet is a lot lighter. Whatever decision you make, it's not that difficult to change later as you see fit, especially with the internet to help you find new and sell old equipment.

If entering or exiting the west end, the North Fork of the Flathead River can be spectacular in early morning as the fog comes off that green glacier water. Just something you might want to look for. Reminds me of Alaska's Kenai River. Breathtaking for me.

The Canon FTb-QL and FD lenses are certainly a good choice, but if you want to do it really on the cheap, try the somewhat older FT-QL with some FL lenses. The older FT is almost identical to the FTb, will still take the FD lenses if you have them, but it'll also take the FL lenses. They're much cheaper and I don't think there's much difference in quality. They just don't work well on as many bodies -- none after the FTb came out.

I've owned both the Lowepro Trekker and Trekker AW. Though I was told that the AW has a better harness system, I have to disagree. I loved the Trekker, and it would be the right size for your equipment. The Trekker AW is slightly larger and has a rain fly, but it doesn't carry as well. It also costs more. If it's a concern to you, they can both be carried onto commercial aircraft, although getting a fully packed AW into the overhead compartment isn't easy.

 

<p>

 

-Don

Anthony, I don't mean to sound flip, but Alaska is a huge state. (If laid over the "lower 48," it would stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific. It has more coastline than all coastal states in the lower 48 combined.) Can you tell us what sort of trip this is. If it's strictly a road trip, that's a lot different than if you can be flying into such places as Kodiak Island or Katmai National Park. The climate also varies considerably depending on where you'll be traveling. Also, if you know about when next summer. Every month will give you different photo ops. If it's late summer, don't count out the northern lights. I've seen them in late August or September when they were breath-taking, but it is a rarity.

Steve, I agree that color is normally a lot prettier than b&w, especially for wildlife. I think there are exceptions, however, the yellow-bellied marmot is probably not one of those exceptions. I shot him in b&w and Provia. Why b&w? Someone mentioned challenge, and for me I guess that was it. When I started shooting nature a few years ago, I hadn't done any photography for about 10 years. I decided to take a year and just shoot b&w. It forced me to watch the lighting carefully. I figured it I could get good b&w images, good color images would be a snap. When I shot this little guy, I was just emerging from my year of b&w only and carried one camera with b&w and one with color slide film. So call it a challenge or call it training. I still shoot b&w occasionally. It's like getting back to basics.

One way to get around the DOF problem Bob mentioned is to shoot the moon with your long lens without any foreground objects in it, then put on a shorter lens, recompose and make a double exposure without the moon. (Is this cheating? Whatever it is, it can get you a neat picture if you get the moon in the right place.)