Thoughts on camera for Alaska?
Posted 18/09/2013 - 11:59
Link
Gwyn wrote:
Never had a problem with the K-5 in winter in Norway.
and stop licking your camera!
Pentaxophile wrote:
I don't know if Alaska is cold at this time of year, but I did notice when I used a K7, it became unbearably cold on crisp winter days... even through gloves the metal body sucked the heat from my hands. And your tongue would stick to it...
I suggest you get better gloves .I don't know if Alaska is cold at this time of year, but I did notice when I used a K7, it became unbearably cold on crisp winter days... even through gloves the metal body sucked the heat from my hands. And your tongue would stick to it...
Never had a problem with the K-5 in winter in Norway.
you don't have to be mad to post here
but it does help
but it does help
Posted 18/09/2013 - 14:01 - Helpful Comment
Link
This is a once in a lifetime trip to a highly photogenic location and I would maximise my opportunities for wonderful photography.
I too think the 18-135 might be a little short. I have no experience of it but some of the images posted from it put me off completely. For landscapes I think IQ looks rather poor at the wide end where it would most likely be used. I wouldn't go for the kit lenses.
I would take a 60-250. I haven't got one but the range and WR seems perfect. The Sigma 100-300 would be an alternative, not rated as WR but it is internal zooming so I'd risk it with a plastic bag wrapped around when necessary. I would look to purchase the lens secondhand and sell it on afterwards.
That makes things bulky so instead of a second zoom I would look to a prime (or two) for the landscape. But changing lenses could be a pain and there is the distinct possibility of a wildlife and a wonderful landscape opportunity at the same time. So I think actually I would take a Ricoh GR or a FujiX100 as an always on me high quality camera and one that could also be used in conjunction with the DSLR. Both I think would be great landscape options and I'd go for a filter adapter and a couple of grads too. I would probably go for the GR and it's extra pocketability and have a 30 or 35mm prime in the DSLR bag. Again buying and selling used would be a low cost option.
I too think the 18-135 might be a little short. I have no experience of it but some of the images posted from it put me off completely. For landscapes I think IQ looks rather poor at the wide end where it would most likely be used. I wouldn't go for the kit lenses.
I would take a 60-250. I haven't got one but the range and WR seems perfect. The Sigma 100-300 would be an alternative, not rated as WR but it is internal zooming so I'd risk it with a plastic bag wrapped around when necessary. I would look to purchase the lens secondhand and sell it on afterwards.
That makes things bulky so instead of a second zoom I would look to a prime (or two) for the landscape. But changing lenses could be a pain and there is the distinct possibility of a wildlife and a wonderful landscape opportunity at the same time. So I think actually I would take a Ricoh GR or a FujiX100 as an always on me high quality camera and one that could also be used in conjunction with the DSLR. Both I think would be great landscape options and I'd go for a filter adapter and a couple of grads too. I would probably go for the GR and it's extra pocketability and have a 30 or 35mm prime in the DSLR bag. Again buying and selling used would be a low cost option.
Posted 18/09/2013 - 14:02
Link
miles500 wrote:
Just back from Alaska. I took my 18-135 which gave me WR insurance and you will probably need it there. I also made a lot of use of my 55-300 not only for wildlife, where it is indispensable ie eagles and bears if you are lucky, but also for landscapes. We were driving in the interior and I found that for a lot of the time one wanted to capture the mountains without emphasizing the immediate foreground which a WA lens will often tend to do. I also had the DA 15 and 21 in the bag but did not use either to any great extent - just the DA 15 where I had a really good foreground. I find in many ways that landscapes are more realistic when taken with a degree of telephoto. If I went again, I think I would again take both zooms and maybe also the DA15 for occasional use. This combination avoids a lot of lens changing.
Thanks Miles - really helpful. I think the late August/early September weather is much the same as mid-May. Fewer bears in May, though
Just back from Alaska. I took my 18-135 which gave me WR insurance and you will probably need it there. I also made a lot of use of my 55-300 not only for wildlife, where it is indispensable ie eagles and bears if you are lucky, but also for landscapes. We were driving in the interior and I found that for a lot of the time one wanted to capture the mountains without emphasizing the immediate foreground which a WA lens will often tend to do. I also had the DA 15 and 21 in the bag but did not use either to any great extent - just the DA 15 where I had a really good foreground. I find in many ways that landscapes are more realistic when taken with a degree of telephoto. If I went again, I think I would again take both zooms and maybe also the DA15 for occasional use. This combination avoids a lot of lens changing.
Posted 18/09/2013 - 14:13
Link
Thanks, too, Dr O.
My ideal combination would be more or less as you suggest. A K-5 or K-30 plus 60-250mm for the wildlife and an X100 for landscapes/people. I like the look of the GR, but the X100 is quite a lot cheaper at present, plus it has the viewfinder.
Only issue is the cost. I do have 8 months, though. Perhaps my wife won't notice if I buy a bit at a time
My ideal combination would be more or less as you suggest. A K-5 or K-30 plus 60-250mm for the wildlife and an X100 for landscapes/people. I like the look of the GR, but the X100 is quite a lot cheaper at present, plus it has the viewfinder.
Only issue is the cost. I do have 8 months, though. Perhaps my wife won't notice if I buy a bit at a time
Posted 18/09/2013 - 15:19
Link
That's what I said. I can't imagine any difficulty selling on either. Buy well and you might even make a few bob.
Posted 24/09/2013 - 18:47
Link
no thought for a sigma 18-250 or 18-200 perhaps. no WR, but more reach than the 18-135
Pentax K3, DA 18-55 WR, Sigma 50-500 EX DG HSM, Pentax M-50, a bucket load of SD cards, some lights and a lightbox
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
10344 posts
20 years
The Netherlands
I don't know if Alaska is cold at this time of year, but I did notice when I used a K7, it became unbearably cold on crisp winter days... even through gloves the metal body sucked the heat from my hands. And your tongue would stick to it...
Never had a problem with the K-5 in winter in Norway.