>> --- Walt Wayman wrote:
>> These cruises are, after all, not full of great photo
>> possibilities, but are more snapshot opportunities. I really
>> don't think they'll change course or anchor for a while just
>> so I can get a better shot.
>
>Sorry, Walt O buddy, O pal. Can't agree with you there. At
>minimum I'd pack a single OM body and a couple of lenses like a
>24mm and a 100mm. They don't take any space and would give you
>a backup option in case something croaks.
I did an Alaska cruise last year on a large (~2000 passenger) ship.
Between impressive vistas, "cosy" cabins and pictures of the ship
taken from the dock, I think I used my 24mm the most.
On the long end, I brought a 200mm and a 2-XA. Even 400mm was not
enough for pictures of whales or icebergs calving off of the glacier.
A 900 foot ship stays well away from such things.
I also brought 35mm, 50mm and 100mm lenses. If I were doing it again,
I might leave the 200mm home, and if my 35mm was an f/2, I might
consider leaving the 50mm as well.
The ship may not anchor for you, but will take a couple of hours to
pass a glacier field, so there are plenty of photo-ops. Shore
excursions give you standard tourist-type opportunities as well.
http://users.rcn.com/rmwoods/skagway.html has a sample of my trip
pictures, though they were originally put there for relatives, not
as a photo exhibit, so I apologize for the quality of the scans.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|