DJphoto Loc: SF Bay Area

We have only been on one cruise, 14 days on Viking from Bergen, north, then finishing in London. I took my Canon 80D (APS-C) and 10-18, 18-135 and 70-300 FF (112-480 equivalent) lenses. I used the 70-300 once, on the first excursion in Bergen, carried it for about 3 days more, then left it in the cabin safe for the rest of the cruise. I also rarely used the 10-18, but it was small and light so I left it in the camera bag. If you need wide shots, take multiple exposures and stitch together in Lightroom or whatever software you use. The key here is what you want to photograph. I thought I would need the 70-300 for photos of shore while we were cruising. However, we stayed so close to shore that it wasn't necessary, even on at sea days. You should try to find out what the situation will be on your cruise via Facebook or other forums (there is an excellent one for Viking cruisers). On one of our at sea days I got up in the morning expecting to be way out at sea; we were about 100 yards from shore and then went under a bridge! If you are going to be on a bigger ship, I suspect you will be farther away from shore. We are going on a 2 week Viking cruise from Barcelona to Venice this summer, followed by post- and pre-cruise extensions in Venice and Lake Como, then a Rhine cruise from Basel to Amsterdam. I'm going to bring the same 3 lenses, but expect to only use the DSLR on the ship. The primary reason for the 70-300 is when we're anchored in the Monaco Harbor and for castles on the Rhine. I bought a Canon G5X Mark II compact camera that fits in a pcket, yet has a 20MP 1" sensor and shoots RAW and JPEG; I plan to use it when I'm off of the ship and leave the DSLR in our cabin. It has a 24-120 lens and should be fine. I considered the Sony RX100, but the Canon menus were similar to my DSLR as was the color reproduction. Regarding a tripod, I agree with other posters: leave it at home. Make and bring a string tripod which weighs almost nothing and will fit in a pocket or a nook in you camera bag. High ISO is you friend when you might be tempted to use a tripod. If you really push the ISO, get Topaz Denoise. We sailed up the Thames at night and I shot most of my photos hand held at ISO 5000 and 6400, used Denoise in post and am happy with the results. Travel as light as you can and enjoy!

David in Dallas Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA

I'm kind of simple. I've had 3 DSLR cameras: D50, D7000, and D7100 (current). The only lens any of them wore were the Nikon 18-200 zooms (first a VR one and later the VR2). In Africa and my last tour of Alaska I also had the Nikon 200-500. It takes excellent pictures, but is pretty unwieldy and got limited use. It is almost demanded for good photos of distant animals, etc., though.

I don't take a tripod. On tours there is generally never enough time to set one up, and many venues don't allow them (especially churches in Europe). Yes, the 18-200 doesn't have a wide aperture, so low-light is more difficult, but I've gotten pretty good at finding ways to provide support for longer exposures (and upping the ISO also helps, with modern cameras).

For those who think a DSLR with an 18-200 lens is just too much to carry, I sympathize, but don't think it's that big a deal. I'll bet they carry a water bottle that is just as heavy and cumbersome (I don't--I am not in fear of dying from dehydration on a short excursion).

Whatever you choose to take and use, keep in mind that the purpose of the cruise (or tour) is to have a good time. Lens changes and tripod setups take time and may result in lost opportunities (not to mention that lens changes may let dust into the camera). In Africa I took a second D7100 just to wear the 200-500 so that I didn't have to change lenses in the field. This was OK because travel there was mostly via 4WD vehicles and I didn't have to actually carry that rig around my neck.

You didn't say where you would be cruising. I don't know how much more inconvenient that long zoom of yours is than the 18-200 I take, but I'd seriously consider using it as your primary lens. The opportunities for a long shot occur sporadically and with little warning--that long focal length will be available all the time with that lens.

One more thought. Sometimes it is not possible to get a really good exposure, especially inside under low light. That can be remedied to a great extent with post processing now. I somehow took photos of a close-by hippopotamus in Africa when I'd accidentally set my camera to 1/8000 sec shutter. The result was that those images were almost black. I tried the exposure compensation in Lightroom and was able to get very acceptable images from that mess. They weren't of the same quality as those with more reasonable exposures, of course, but they were quite usable. I was very pleased, because that was the only hippo I'd seen up close. Here is the post-processed version:
_DSC7952.jpg by David Casteel, on Flickr

The original is below:

Exposure at 1/8000 second (200-500 zoom at 500)

(Download)

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Spectacular results, David 🏆🏆💎🏆🏆

David in Dallas Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA

Thank you. Not trying to usurp the subject of the thread, just illustrate a point. (Did you look at any other photos there?)