angik_sarkar

<p>Hi Salil,<br>

Let me tell you my experience. I went with D750, 18-35, 80-400 and 24-120 with D90 as a backup. There were some great suggestions but if I had to change anything, I wish I carried a 28-300 instead of a 24-120 despite the IQ hit. <br>

The landscapes in Antarctica are so vast, 80-400 almost remained glued to my camera, though I got some really good shots the 18-35, mostly on shore. You can check some of my Antarctica shots at https://500px.com/AngikSarkar.<br>

Contrary to most of the experts here, I would strongly advise carrying a superzoom (like 28-300 for FX or 18-300 for DX) glued to at least a backup camera. You worry about the IQ only when you get the shot!<br>

The main purpose of the crappy superzoom lens is for zodiac trips. Penguins, seals and especially whales move really fast though water, the focal length requirement changes so rapidly, you hardly have time to change camera leave alone changing lenses. On one of my zodiac trips, a minke whale decided to check us out. It was swimming so close under our zodiac, I could have probably touched it. By the time I put down my main camera with 80-400 on and picked up the backup with 18-35, the whale had moved further away. There were quite a few of such encounters and missed most shots. <br>

Now for your questions,<br>

1. Again, really easy to change on mainland and on ship but not so much on zodiacs, though I did it anyway.<br>

2. Whatever lenses you take, you will come back with probably the best pictures of your life. I got 400mm and it was great for most cases but for the albatrosses which mostly hung out in the distance.<br>

600mm would have been great there. On land, 400mm was more than sufficient because the penguins come really close to you. The only case where it could have been useful was for the seals which you are not allowed to approach. But, they stay stationary on land, so you could get the shot with 400mm and just crop it.<br>

I wouldn't advise a 150-600 lens as your main lens since 150mm is too long. I got a lot of 'landscape' shots in the 80-90mm range. Also 150-600 lens is too slow. For the flying albatrosses, you may need at least 1/600-1/800 shutter speed on a cloudy day.<br>

3. Read my responses above for lens choices. The purpose of the wide-angle is not a panorama, you can easily do that with stitched photos. The wide angle can give you a great perspective which I love. <br>

Whatever you do, give yourself atleast 3 months/2000 shots to familiarize yourself with the camera. I got a fairly new D750 with me. I shot vigorously before the trip and familiarized myself with it but did not know about some video options which would have made for some killer videos.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks a lot for the replies. <br>

@Kent, the advantage of D750 that I have noticed in the last few days is higher dynamic range (crazy details recovery from shadows), higher fps.<br>

@Shun Thanks for sharing the exif and good point regarding resolutions. I would probably keep the D90 as a true backup and go to shore with D750 with 80-400 strapped on and 24-120 in the camera bag. <br>

For camera bag, I am planning to carry an Lowepro 250AW messenger bag inside a Sealine 30L dry bag. Is this a good combination?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks a lot for your replies. The only reason I was considering was that it I read that it is not advisable to change lenses ashore in the harsh conditions in Antarctica. Is that true?<br>

My reasoning was that if I cannot change lenses, 28-300 would have offered me a chance to shoot with the D750 at longer focal lengths. <br>

If I take 24-120 and 80-400, should I put the 24-120 on D750 and 80-400 on D90 for shore landings? This covers all focal lengths from 24-640mm (FX equivalent). However,I don't get D750's advantages at tele lengths.<br>

The other option would be Nikon 18-35 on D90 and 80-400 on D750. This allows me shoot D750 at tele lengths but the total range is lower.</p>

<p>PS:<br>

a. I already got my D750 and started shooting. I am blown over by the quality. It is a huge step up from my D90.<br>

b. The shuttle I fly into Ushuaia has a carry on bag limitation of 8kg. I can't see an option to carry more by paying. The camera backpack itself is 2 kg. D750+D90+laptop is 3kg. That leaves 3 kg for lenses. 80-400 is ~1.5kg, 18-35 is ~400g. 24-120 is ~700g. Leaves <1kg for my filters, batteries, 50mm (for Buenos Aires) and other gear.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am planning to go to Argentinian patagonia for a week and Antarctic peninsula for about two weeks. I am totally confused right now regarding lens choices after reading various accounts on this forum and others.<br>

I have a D90 and am planning to get a D750. I would take 2 bodies. <br>

Currently I own the following lenses: Tokina 12-24 (DX), 30,35,50 primes, 70-300 VR (DX/FX), 105mm macro. reading various accounts, my preliminary plan is to buy a few lenses and am trying to decide between the two choices<br>

Choice 1:<br>

Nikon 18-35 (for wide angle on D750 in Patagonia. Not sure if this would be useful in Antarctica) <br>

Nikon 28-300 (use with D750 on shore landings?)<br>

Nikon 80-400 (use with D750/D90 from ship for birds/whales/landscape)<br>

Choice 2:<br>

Nikon 18-35 (for wide angle on D750 in Patagonia. Not sure if this would be useful in Antarctica) <br>

Nikon 24-120 VR (for use on the D750)<br>

Nikon 80-400 (use with D90 on shore and D750/D90 from ship for birds/whales/landscape)<br>

I would be carrying tripod,ball head, Polarizer, Lee kit with 3 stops soft grad ND and 3 stop full ND, ziplock bags.<br>

My confusions:<br>

1. The lens choices were driven by weight restrictions. The 28-300 has okay performance, so not too happy about the choice. However, is the 28-300 a better lens to carry considering that it might be difficult to change lenses in Antarctica?<br>

2. Would I really need a 18-35 if I carry a 24-120? <br>

3. What backpack would you recommend. I would probably get a drysack to wrap around the backpack?<br>

4. Would any other lens choices be better? I can spend upto $3K but my major restriction is weight. <br>

5. Can I substitute the 28-300 with any other lens? Is the 80-400 useless if I carry a 28-300 anyway?</p>

<p>Thank you for your time.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I decided that the shots are really important to me, so I would take the SLR +3 lenses. The only point I am still undecided is: Should I go with the 12-24 +35mm+55-200 combo as planned earlier or should I go with 18-105+55-200+35mm (if space permits)? <br>

18-105 is a good walkaround lens so during my daytime trips in cities like cusco, I can just go with the camera and lens dangling around my neck. But I would probably miss the wide angle in Macchu Picchu and Salar Uyuni.<br>

If I go with the 12-24 +35mm+55-200 combo, I would probably go walk around with 55-200, keep the 35mm and the S95 in my pocket.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>One of the reasons I am rethinking about taking the SLR is that it is taking up a lot of space when packed inside the camera backpack and tucked inside my 50L backpack. Any idea how to carry it without taking up space?</p>

 

<p>In the light of all the troubles of traveling with a SLR to Peru, I was wondering if I should go just with the S95 and shoot in RAW. Image quality wise, I think it is ok for city scapes. <br>

Pros:<br>

1. 4 pounds less in my backpack<br>

2. No problems with airport officials.<br>

3. Hopefully doesn't scream 'wealthy tourist'.<br>

4. I would have no worry of losing my camera gear. The S95 is still under the 3 month credit card insurance on my credit card.<br>

5. I have a waterproof housing for it, which I can carry with the added space.<br>

6. The added space will allow me to carry another jacket which might come in handy.<br>

7. It will force me to rethink my composition.<br>

Big Cons<br>

1. Manual control..S95 has manual control but can't really control everything.<br>

2. IQ, probably can be improved in RAW. But I would have to shoot in Manual focus for sharpness.<br>

3. I would miss the zoom range in amazon and for street photography and the wide angle in Salar, Colca Canyon or other picturesque places.<br>

4. For the whole month, I would be thinking if i made the right decision in chucking my tested D90.<br>

Big dilemma: In the last 5 years that I am shooting, I ever never ever traveled anywhere without the DSLR. But then I have never taken a solo, one month trip either.</p>

<p>Thanks francisco for your concern. I was only planning to take a 50L backpack. The camera pack ~20L fits inside it. I may be able to spread them around.<br>

I am taking a camera pack because I am worried about the padding protection in other bags. i can certainly put away a few lenses and spread them around. In urban areas I don't intend to either use the DSLR with the 35mm during the day, with the 55-200 in my pocket or the S95 at night. <br>

Since you have experience of staying in Bolivia, how would you have arranged the gear?<br>

To counter the extremes I am planning on layering. Can't quite decide my base layer..the mid layer will be a fleece and the outer layer, a windbreaker microfiber jacket.</p>

 

<p>Oh no! I am traveling into Lima. The best I can do is leave my backup at home! Which idiot made such a law! How can one capture everything with one lens!</p>

<p>How many layers would be good? I am planning on an inner tshirt, fleece and then a windbreaker. Will this be enough?<br>

Is there any way to rent a tripod in Cusco/la paz?</p>

 

<p>I would be there for the month of september.</p>

<p>The only warm clothing I have packed is a North face fleece jacket. Do I need to pack something else? I thought I could buy sweaters in Peru/Bolvia if required.</p>

 

<p>I would be in the Amazon for around 7 days and around a month total in peru/Bolivia. I was thinking of carrying a few silica gel backs.</p>

<p>I should mention that I am only carrying a 50L backpack with a 20L camera backpack inside it. i was thinking of carrying my gorillapod but not sure if it is worth the added weight and space.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies. I want to take my SB-600 with me, but can find space to pack more stuff! <br>

Regarding the lenses I was wondering if I would miss a normal zoom say the 18-105mm. My reasoning was that I have that covered with the S95 anyway.<br>

I have UV filter on all the lenses, I also have a polarizer. I am taking an extra poncho for the camera.<br>

I am wondering whats the best way to store the camera in the 100% humidity of the amazon</p>

 

<p>I am thinking of taking the following the following combination to peru/Bolvia trip for a month<br>

Nikon D90<br>

Tokina 12-24mm<br>

35mm f1.8<br>

55-200 VR<br>

Stuff that I am leaving behind<br>

105mm MF macro<br>

18-105mm VR<br>

Apart from this I am also planning on carrying a Canon S95 as a backup camera <br>

I am planning to travel to Amazon rainforest, Macchu picchu and sacred Valley, La paz, Salar Uyuni, climbing Huyana Potosi, Colca Canyon.<br>

Have I made the right gear choices?<br>

Any other tips/suggestions would be really appreciated.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks to everybody for their advice, I am a novice, I stooped down to f/22 since I saw a few good lake sunset/sunrise shots with both foreground and background in good focus. Another reason to use it was that I was trying to get silkyness in the waterfalls at noon. Yes I was using a tripod and ball head. But yes I have decided I will stick to my combo. The reason I was upset is that my photos are missing the zing that I normally see in Professional quality photos. I dont know what is wrong. Some of my compositions are widely appreciated but the photos are not vibrant or leave me agape. I guess I will spend a bit more time with my camera and lens combo to get what is going wrong</p>

<p>I recently upgraded from D40 recently since I got a good deal on it. I have the following lenses 1)18-55mm 2)55-200VR 3) 105mm F4 AIS macro.<br>

I am a science graduate with a passion for photography. I mostly shoot outdoor. I am not very satisfied with the performance I get from the 18-55. The pictures are not very sharp. Neither is the bokeh good. I was most disappointed on a recent trip to Yosemite where I was shooting lakes and streams near mountains at f/22. So I was thinking about upgrading to a better lens atleast for outdoor nature photography. Which lens would be best for my needs considering that I dont much savings right now. Will a 18-70 give me better performance than the 18-55. I have heard of low light problems with 18-70. Are there any off-brands which would better bang for bucks? I would have loved to own a 17-55 but that is not possible to afford on a student stipend.<br>

Also would cheaper primes be of any help?</p>