Camera choice for Alaska (Page 2): I would take the Nikon D7100 with a 55-300mm lens for reach. Don't forget your gun or spray for bears while hiking.

par4fore Loc: Bay Shore N.Y.

brooklyncarole wrote:

Going to Alaska on the 6th of September for two weeks. No cruise - renting a car, taking day tours, hiking, etc.. I have a Nikon D7100 with a 55-300mm lens and a fuji x T2 with a 55-200mm lens and want to choose only one camera. I've been using the fuji much more lately because it weighs so much less. I have many other lenses for each but I'm concerned about having distance. Which would you suggest taking?

I would take the Nikon D7100 with a 55-300mm lens for reach. Don't forget your gun or spray for bears while hiking.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

Both are crop sensor cameras, so each will give you good reach. Nikon a little more reach but a lot more weight. So it depends on what you’re doing when not in the car. Your Fuji will likely be your walk around. The weight of my beloved Nikon and lenses led me to switch to mirrorless after a long trip out west.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

If traveling light is what you want or need, take the Fuji.

brooklyncarole Loc: New York

Thanks for all your advice. I do have wide angle lenses for both cameras. It was only reach and weight that concerned me.

James Van Ells

Been to Alaska a lot. Take them both but when you hike, take the weather resistant one with the weather resistant lens if you have one. If not, take the lightest one, and several gallon freezer bags to protest the camera during the inevitable showers.

willy6419

I’ve been in Alaska since 7/28, with another week

Bring both

Longest lens you have and a wide angle !

Animals rarely close, often 50 to several hundred yards away

Scenery is expansive , waterfalls etc.

Rain protection mandatory

Consider something like cotton carrier to minimize carrying weight

Tripod

A little inconvenience will give you better photos for a lifetime

willy6419

I’ve been in Alaska since 7/28, with another week

Bring both

Longest lens you have and a wide angle !

Animals rarely close, often 50 to several hundred yards away

Scenery is expansive , waterfalls etc.

Rain protection mandatory

Consider something like cotton carrier to minimize carrying weight

Tripod

A little inconvenience will give you better photos for a lifetime

Terry

Take both so if the one fails you have a back up. It would really stink not to have another in case one dies.

ColoPete

Just got back from Alaska, myself. I had a Nikon D7200, with a 24-120 f4 Nikkor FX lens (sharpness) and an 18-300 f3.5-6.3 Nikkor DX for more reach. Even with the 18-300 , I still would have liked more reach for wildlife (birds, whales, etc.) but it was adequate. For hiking, I mostly used the 24-120, and a LowePro BP300AW II pack, with a Peak Design Capture clip on the shoulder strap, which made carrying the camera less of a chore and freed my hands for clambering over rocks, trees, etc. In your case, I would bring the 55-300 along with a wide angle zoom. I brought a monopod but never used it, and setting up a tripod was out of the question as it was a family trip and they like to keep moving. Bring plenty of SD cards, as you will likely take more photos than you think. It is a very scenic, wonderful, immense place. You can buy bear spray and/or bells in Alaska, and airlines may prohibit aerosols. Have a great trip.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

James Van Ells wrote:

Been to Alaska a lot. Take them both but when you hike, take the weather resistant one with the weather resistant lens if you have one. If not, take the lightest one, and several gallon freezer bags to protest the camera during the inevitable showers.

Or travel to a part of Alaska where showers are not inevitable.

Utpiagvik is far far more interesting and photogenic than anywhere that rains... and we get only 5 inches equivalent rainfall, which includes snow, all year. That is half of what southern Arizona gets!

You just need to know that Alaska is not the place a tour boat goes.

issa2006.

I went to Alaska in July this year and did not take my nikon 18-140 lens and I was really sorry I didn't. I took a longer lens and needed a wide angle more often than that one. Since we were also driving the weight wasn't an issue.Have a great time.It is an amazing state and I think you will see more than if you were on a cruise. Be sure to go to Homer if you can. The view coming into town is spectacular and the town itself is so beautiful and artsy.

Mama Bear984 Loc: Langley, BC Canada

We came back a few weeks ago. Take the 55-300 you’ll need it for the glaciers.
If you have a balcony stay there, the ship goes up the inlet & turns twice then leaves.
You will see the same thing from your balcony as you will up on deck.
And it quieter too to heard the glacier it’s amazing the sound it makes.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

rgrenaderphoto wrote:

Between the two, you're missing wide angle, which is a real necessity in a magnificent state like Alaska. I'd take the Fuji for weight considerations, and get a 16-55 lens.

Same here...

ricardo00

brooklyncarole wrote:

Going to Alaska on the 6th of September for two weeks. No cruise - renting a car, taking day tours, hiking, etc.. I have a Nikon D7100 with a 55-300mm lens and a fuji x T2 with a 55-200mm lens and want to choose only one camera. I've been using the fuji much more lately because it weighs so much less. I have many other lenses for each but I'm concerned about having distance. Which would you suggest taking?

Just got back a week ago. Like you, no cruise though went on a couple boat rides, one for whale watching and another day trip for the glaciers. You don't say where you are going or what you plan to do on the trips. I brought my Nikon D500 which I pretty much had my 300mm f/4 PF lens on the whole time (sometimes with a 1.4TC) for distance as well as Nikon D7200 with the 16-80mm lens. I also kept a Sony RX100mIII in my pocket. Wildlife is never predictable, a couple times when I had the D500 out the bears (once a grizzly mom and her cubs and the other time a black bear and cubs) were so close I couldn't focus with the 300mm lens and had to pull out the Sony! Other times the 300mm with 1.4TC was still not enough reach. Alaska is amazing! Have a great time.
PS.
I post my photos on flickr if you are interested:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60519499@N00/albums/72157694711451270

Angmo

Alaska? Mosquito spray, bear spray, large caliber firearm, fun attitude. Bring back some gold nuggets!