Camera for Alaska trip question

What I personally know about camera's is very little, but I am trying to make sure we do the best we can for my son who is in the learning stages. He is on the autistic spectrum, 19 yrs old, and LOVES wildlife and animal photography. When we took him on a 2 week zoo/aquarium trip in California last year he took an average of 800-1000 photos per day (San Diego zoo, Monterey Bay Aquarium, etc).

SO... that being said, we are going to Alaska next year, and are in the planning stages to make sure we get him the right equipment to complement this trip. He needs time to work with it so he is ready to go which is why we are planning so far ahead.

His camera is a mirrorless Olympus, E-PL5, and he has the 40-150mm F4 zoom lens in addition to the one it came with. We are considering getting him the Olympus MSC ED-M 75 to 300mm II f4.8-6.7 Zoom, but are concerned about the added weight and length since he is a little guy (barely 90 pounds and 4'10") He had a really nice Panasonic Lumix for seven or 8 years and took SUCH good care of it, he has been overjoyed at the enhanced quality of photos with this newer camera.

Any suggestions? Is this the right move or should we be considering something else for him... are there any accessories we should be thinking about? He has a regular tripod but that seems like it might be too much for this trip, we thought maybe the gorilla pod might be a better choice but definitely open other suggestions. He will have parental assistance for carrying his gear, but weight is definitely a factor because he likes to handle things himself as much as possible. (we do the lens changes for him because his manual dexterity is an issue).

He already has 3 batteries, so we are good there. I am hoping to find a patient high school student in our area to work with him on using his camera better than I am able to do since I am quite happy with my iPhone ;)

Thanks for any advice you can share!

Heidi

What I personally know about camera's is very little, but I am trying to make sure we do the best we can for my son who is in the learning stages. He is on the autistic spectrum, 19 yrs old, and LOVES wildlife and animal photography. When we took him on a 2 week zoo/aquarium trip in California last year he took an average of 800-1000 photos per day (San Diego zoo, Monterey Bay Aquarium, etc).

 

SO... that being said, we are going to Alaska next year, and are in the planning stages to make sure we get him the right equipment to complement this trip. He needs time to work with it so he is ready to go which is why we are planning so far ahead.

 

His camera is a mirrorless Olympus, E-PL5, and he has the 40-150mm F4 zoom lens in addition to the one it came with. We are considering getting him the Olympus MSC ED-M 75 to 300mm II f4.8-6.7 Zoom, but are concerned about the added weight and length since he is a little guy (barely 90 pounds and 4'10") He had a really nice Panasonic Lumix for seven or 8 years and took SUCH good care of it, he has been overjoyed at the enhanced quality of photos with this newer camera.

 

Any suggestions? Is this the right move or should we be considering something else for him... are there any accessories we should be thinking about? He has a regular tripod but that seems like it might be too much for this trip, we thought maybe the gorilla pod might be a better choice but definitely open other suggestions. He will have parental assistance for carrying his gear, but weight is definitely a factor because he likes to handle things himself as much as possible. (we do the lens changes for him because his manual dexterity is an issue).

 

He already has 3 batteries, so we are good there. I am hoping to find a patient high school student in our area to work with him on using his camera better than I am able to do since I am quite happy with my iPhone ;)

 

Thanks for any advice you can share!

 

Heidi

As an avid Olympus user (EM-1), I think your son has adequate lenses for Alaska. The quality of the photographs are better than introducing a shaky long telephoto lens. Since wildlife is generally moving and not posing as in a zoo, hand-holding the camera is important. Olympus has a fast 25 mm lens that might be good for indoor photography while moving around the ship.

I would recommend a monopod rather than the tripod. A monopod can also be used as a walking stick and collapses quite nicely.

The Crab Fishing excursion aboard the Aleutian Ballad of TV's "Deadliest Catch" series stops and feeds the eagles in Ketchikan. Lots of eagles swooping down to the water to grab food. Your son would love the photo ops.

Thank you! We had wondered if going to the better zoom might be too difficult, but were concerned that he might not get the photos he desired with what he already had. Perhaps we should invest in better binoculars instead and just help him to enjoy the sights when things are too far away for photos...

We had planned on the "Deadliest Catch" excursion... it sounded like it would be right up his alley, and since we are doing both the north and south bound on Princess we get 2 shots at all the ports so we can choose multiple excursions since there are so many to choose from (plus twice in Glacier Bay... he collects National Park stamps too).

Thank you for your advice!

heidi

I'll second the recommendation for a monopod, and it could be a great benefit for him no matter what lens he's using. (It does take a little work to get used to monopod shooting if the monopod is under the camera, as you have to, um, manage your belly, or at least I do...)

I know that I've got high standards, but I'd be a little hesitant of a zoom telephoto that ends up at f/6.7 at the long end. On a sunny day, it won't matter, but if the clouds/rain roll in, that may end up being too "dark" to manage good pictures in the "OMG I have to shoot it all RIGHT NOW because the tour will be over in 15 minutes then we go do something else MORE MORE MORE" excitement/chaos of Alaska.

It is a good thing HE will be doing the shooting with the monopod and camera not me, because I would be in the same boat as you (so to speak ;) ) He is a tiny little guy, skinny as a rail!

I have seen some monopods that have 3 legs at the bottom that retract that might give it a little more stability for his sake, so if we pick it up early on he can have time to practice with it on our cross country Canada trip this year as well as out at the Birds of Prey area near us. (we live in Idaho near the Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area.... very cool place with birds of various kinds nearly year round).

He is passionate about being able to see predators in the wild instead of in the zoo... his big dream especially is wolves and bears. Bears I think is doable... wolves would be especially cool. He did see one in Yellowstone a few years back but with only his Lumix photos were simply not going to happen, way too far away. That was why we were thinking the zoom telephoto might help. It sounds like it might end up frustrating him more than helping him though, and we don't want to go there... Might be better if Dad got a telephoto for HIS camera and arranged to help him take some photos with it instead. Or getting a really good pair of binoculars anyway... We will have to think on this.

Thanks for the input!

Heidi

Again, MY opinion here, but the monopods with three legs are perhaps more geared to video, in situations where tripod is forbidden or too big, but support AND keeping the camera level is essentlal. On an Alaska cruise, particularly on small boat tours and such, the monopod plus your own two legs creates a great base when used all together, but can "inverse-sway" to counteract the rocking of a boat. Regardless, a true monopod can adapt to uneven terrain instantly, as it's just one leg/foot.

Thankfully he's short, but I'd encourage a monopod that get reach to his shooting height, and possibly higher if a one-way "monopod head" is feasible. A one-way head essentially limits itself to tipping up/down, without flopping side to side like other tripod heads might do.

Also, do you have any sort of remote trigger for the camera? Holding the camera up in the air atop a monopod could be a neat perspective, especially if he's used to "the short view".

Because of his autism/developmental delays, he needs a little more assistance with securing the camera than a typical adult might. I don't think a typical monopod is going to work for him (he has issues with hand/arm/finger strength and control). His camera does have a flip screen so he can hold it over his head to take pictures so he can take photos occasionally when the subject is just out of his sight. I don't think it has a remote trigger though... will have to look into that possibility. Thank you!

This is the one we were looking at http://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00ZGY6X3I/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_S_img?_encoding=UTF8&colid=I3Y48LU3S9FR&coliid=IPRN796AT7JBP

I'm a little out of my league here, but I'm intrigued by your "remote trigger" suggestion. Would this be specific branded for a camera, or just something more generic that works with any type?

I have an Olympus *****-D EM10 mark ii as well as the 75-300mm lens you mentioned. Below are some pictures with it, handheld. I'm not little, nor do I have troubles with my hands, but have some back problems and weight is an issue because of that. I do not find this lens too heavy. I did have to increase the ISO setting to make sure movement was not an issue.

These pictures are (probably) fully zoomed to 300mm and cropped in addition. The birds were in a lake, maybe a football field length away, not more than that. I don't think he'd get much wildlife closer than that and with 150mm, they will appear much smaller in the frame.

A tripod is not always a great solution for wildlife, because you don't know where they are going to appear, it's better for landscapes in my opinion.

I don't know where in Alaska you're stopping, but as a photographer, I found Kroschel Wildlife Center in Haines to be fascinating. The animals there are "movie stars" and they are very conscious to set up the enclosures so you can get photos that look like the animals are out in the wild. Not the same as shooting wild animals, but you can get closer and also be assured that you will see animals (whereas I went on a tour to shoot in the wild, and spent all day driving around to find bears or moose, and only saw distant eagles.)

Those pics are SO awesome. I WAS doing a second cruise where I stopped in Haines, but cancelled it in favor of Canadian Rockies and Yellowstone with my parents in their RV-- but it's certainly on my list in the future!!

Sweet photos! That was on our list to be refined... Sean has read and seen some of the videos done by these people and very impressed by them. Living in Idaho he especially would love to see the wolverine (another favorite). If we ever plan another trip to Alaska it would be a road trip so we can spend some time in Kodiak too... just can't manage it this time around. Heidi

I'm a little out of my league here, but I'm intrigued by your "remote trigger" suggestion. Would this be specific branded for a camera, or just something more generic that works with any type?

Depends on which way you go. Most cameras have a connector to attach a remote. We started with a "timer remote" for our cameras, which has not only a button, but a variety of timer-related functions that can be intermingled (all the way to "sleep for six hours, then every hour, take six shots, each one 1m15s long"; you can of course do any piece of that solo). Other cameras may accept a wireless remote (optical, usually).

I've since "invested" in a bunch of RF trigger units (switchable between transmitter and receiver), and a variety of cords to connect them to our cameras and our flashes. I can use them so that shooting with one camera causes a second camera to also shoot, or just remotely trigger a camera, or remotely trigger a flash. Here's an example from a July 4th "wiener party": I just put the camera on a "floor plate" at my feet (that's my shoe on the right), and triggered it whenever a dog came by.

Another example to just show the perspective of putting the camera up high: my wife and I were shooting a charity walk. One of the teams had gathered on the bleachers for a team photo, and my (short) wife was down in front, where she got this shot: I'd say it's a decent shot, and not overly cluttered, but the back rows aren't very visible, which is a shame as there's actually almost half of the NFL mascots in the back. I put my camera on a monopod, but had forgotten to bring my triggers, so I had to resort to setting the 10-second timer, hitting the button, hoisting the camera/monopod as high as I could hold it, aim/guess/wait, feel the camera take the shot, then bring it down and review; rinse/repeat as many times as I could. Here's my shot: I'll admit that it's rather cluttered, but a much higher percentage of faces (or sunglasses...) are visible (my wife is visible in the bottom of the shot, to the right of center, in an orange t-shirt). Is it better? Not necessarily, but there's something to be said for a perspective that perhaps no other photographer could have gotten.