Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Whilst I realise my two M43 cameras are easier to carry and I have no really long lenses (see signature). I do feel there is less chance of introducing dust or damp by not needing to change lenses so often, and less chance of dropping something in a feverish haste to capture an animal shot.
Might just be worth writing down the pros and cons. My choice would be to wrap up my #2 camera separately and take it anyway. Covers all possibilities!

J-SPEIGHT Loc: Akron, Ohio

I would take 2 one for birding and one for landscapes so you don't miss anything while changing lenses.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Previous advice, travel light, travel light. We were there last May, rented a car, put 1200 miles on it and saw almost every kind of animal Alaska has to offer (all except the Brown Bears, will be doing that soon). BTW, coldest and wettest May I have ever experienced. For me one camera with a long telephoto, a mid-range telephoto and a wide angle lens was sufficient (used the long telephoto about 60-70% of the time). 400mm as a bare minimum for any wildlife shots since most will not be close unless you're at a wildlife rescue. Your 150-600mm will be more than enough but remember you have to carry it around, renting a car helps manage all that gear. Landscapes galore, its truly a smorgasbord. Take lots of photos but more importantly Ann, take time to enjoy the trip itself.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Trip of a lifetime requires some redundancy. Two bodies for certain. I would go the rental route to get a second D500, and I would bring all three Nikon-mount lenses. I suggest you get comfortable with shooting stitched panos for your landscapes, you'll appreciate how much more natural they look compared to would take with a single wide or ultra wide lens. Redundancy is for equipment and media that can malfunction.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

When I can, I carry two cameras. I carry a (DX) D7100 and an FX (D610). I keep a wide to normal lens on the full frame and an 80-400mm on the D7100. This gives me an immediate camera for whatever situation. Yes, I know that the second camera is "extra" weight, but (in reality) it is better than carrying one camera and always having the wrong lens on it. It always happens that if I have one camera and multiple lenses, then the wrong lens for the current shot is always on the camera and by the time I've changed lenses, the shot is gone.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

One camera. Since this is basically a photography trip, you will have a chance to slow down and change lenses. Enjoy the trip. Don't stress out over it.

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

I may be able to provide insight since I have done it both ways. In Alaska, I took only a D700 with a range of lenses and was a bit frustrated with having to change lenses. I rented a AF Nikkor 80-400 there so I did not have to travel with it. I was generally pleased with the results. When we went to Iceland 2 years later, I took the D700 and a D300s. I carried both of these bodies with lenses mounted and had to change much less. (All my glass is Nikkor FX and no variable aperture zooms) The combination was great since these two bodies have control layouts that are EXACTLY the same. Less changing but more weight. Since I’m never happy, and I was getting tired of the two body problem, I traded both in and got myself a D810. Although I am back to lens changing, the D810 allows me to shoot in DX mode with 16mp resolution. That allows me to use my AFS Nikkor 300mm with a TC17EII and get the effective field of view of a 750mm lens. My advice to you is to do what you are comfortable with and since you will have a vehicle, try two bodies and see how it goes. You can change your mind once you’re there, but if you leave a body at home, you can’t.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Hmmm. "Trip of a lifetime." My thinking is that 90+% of the time, one camera body will be fine. But, on a "trip of a lifetime" I always remember that I got that "klutz" gene from some damn ancestor and if I drop/break/lose my camera body, then I'm screwed. I take 2, but that's just me.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I agree with J. Changing lenses multiple times is a pain. I assume that you will have a camera bag. I would wear the camera/lens combo that you're using around your neck or however you carry it and leave the other combo assembled in the bag. It would be very easy to switch camera/lens combos when necessary and switch back, too, when needed. Of course, in the car it will be much easier. I think the two camera/two lens combo is just as convenient as worrying about one camera and multiple lenses. JM2CW!!

Wanderer2 Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains

Totally agree. If taking two cameras and lenses does not present a significant difficulty because of size and weight I would always opt for a backup camera on a once in a lifetime type trip such as this. Remember Murphy's Law - if something can go wrong it will. However, as already suggested, it might make sense to rent a second Nikon body and leave the Sony at home so you could reduce the number of heavy lenses you would need to take.

monroephoto

Photo Rule 1 - the lens that’s on the single camera you have, is rarely the lens you’d prefer. Take both cameras (so long as you are comfortable carrying the equipment.). Have fun!

mymike Loc: Tucson, AZ

You said this was a trip of a lifetime and that you would be in a car. Take both cameras! I took 3 when I went on a cruise in Alaska. I am only taking a p & s to Europe on a cruise this spring. I don’t want to lug a lot of camera gear this time and my Canon G7X 2 takes amazing pics.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

Absolutely a backup is necessary for an Alaska trip if for nothing else, weather, and then at least a quality P&S with an extended zoom. And as for your cruise mymike, especially if its a repositioning cruise, BTDT and taking less is a must on those cruises, space limited and extra weight a definite hindrance. Enjoy

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

It’s always nice to have a backup, and I’m guessing you’ll wind up mostly shooting the Sony because it’s so easy to carry around.

marcoj Loc: Auburndale, Queens, New York City

Hello Ann:

Last summer, we cruised the Alaskan inside passage from Vancouver, BC, to several Alaska ports of call including two glaciers. I had a Nikon D80 with 18-70 and 55-200 Nikkors and I was able to adequately cover the scene with those. I also had a Nikon compact (P&S) as backup.

I feel that with your 18-55 and 70-300 you will have all you need.

Regards, and have a great trip.

Marcoj