camera or binoculars

[skrapngal]

so I'm researching binoculars for possible purchase for an Alaskan cruise, but I'm asking myself if I will use them... I'm an avid scrapbooker and will likely be very trigger happy, throughout the whole cruise.

 

Any thoughts on how useful a pair of binoculars would be?

 

No flaming please, I'm simply searching for honest opinions :)

[pierces]

so I'm researching binoculars for possible purchase for an Alaskan cruise, but I'm asking myself if I will use them... I'm an avid scrapbooker and will likely be very trigger happy, throughout the whole cruise.

 

Any thoughts on how useful a pair of binoculars would be?

 

No flaming please, I'm simply searching for honest opinions :)

 

It is such a personal use choice that all I can offer is the results of my personal choice.

 

I love photography. Out of 32 cruises so far, 100% have involved a camera(s). 0% have involved binoculars even though I own a decent pair and have been to Alaska a few times.

 

If it is a budgeting issue and you want to have access to a pair to confirm that there is something far off worth scrapbooking, maybe an inexpensive pocketable pair?

 

Whatever you choose, enjoy your trip!

 

Dave

[peety3]

My wife is an avid scrapbooker, and we're both "over the top serious" hobby photographers. I vote camera 100%. On our last Alaska cruise, we shot roughly 9500 shots for 165GB, which boiled down to 300 "star" images:

[awboater]

My "binoculars" is a camera.

[ginger and professor]

I travel with both. I purchased a pair of compact Leica 8x25 nearly 35 years ago and they are always in my travel bag. Their are many times that a small quality binocular can give you a great idea as to whats out there compared to trying to find it in a long telephoto lens. I don't see it as a question of either /or but feel they compliment each other when traveling. Just my 2 cents.

[Steviewonder1]

+2 on the Camera as Binoculars. I have a 28-300 IS lens that I used in Alaska and with my T4i I used the new Canon 18-135 STM IS Lens to shoot stills and Video in the Eastern Med. Both worked for the use they were tasked with. In Alaska sometimes you cannot get close enough for a smaller lens, in Europe you will in most cases drive by the object of your affection for a closer view. In both cases I only used 1 lens but did have a 10-20MM Wide angle that was not used.

[donaldsc]

so I'm researching binoculars for possible purchase for an Alaskan cruise, but I'm asking myself if I will use them... I'm an avid scrapbooker and will likely be very trigger happy, throughout the whole cruise.

 

Any thoughts on how useful a pair of binoculars would be?

 

No flaming please, I'm simply searching for honest opinions :)

 

+1 on you need both as they serve completely different purposes. An 8x binocular is equivalent to a 400 mm lens. Besides the superzooms, how many of us own 400 mm lenses?

 

Also, do not make the mistake of buying cheap binoculars - they are worse than useless. I posted a link to a very good binocular site on the Alaska board. Check it out. You do not have to spend a ton of money to get decent binoculars.

 

DON

[Habenero]

I bring two sets of binoculars and a have a good telephoto lens on the camera. when I see something worth shooting, I loan the binoculars to the people on either side of me. Its my way of sharing the scenery and not having someone bumping me as I am shooting.

[LA_CA_GAL]

I always take my binocs and my camera and gear.

[pilotdane]

Optically I'm generally loaded for bear. My travel kit always includes a small pair of 10x20 pocket binoculars and when going somewhere scenic like Alaska a couple pair of binoculars usually come along. That said I'm most often looking through my camera's big telephoto. The binos are better for scanning and seeing but the camera has image stabilization and the ability to click the shutter button. The binos are much smaller, lighter and less expensive so there is always a trade off.

 

The big problem to my optical obsession is that quality optics are generally big and heavy (I'm ignoring the fact that they are also quite expensive). There is no way to cheat physics so big pieces of quality glass produce the best images. In the past my "technical" gear has been 60% of my gear weight with 10-15% for the backpack or suitcase leaving precious little for clothing. Not much of an issue when spending time in the jungle but I'm finding it more troublesome for vacation trips, especially to Europe where luggage restrictions can be rather Draconian. I've been caught with premium tickets to/from where luggage was not an issue only to be buggered by a hop via a partnered carrier.

 

All that said I would not go to Alaska without a good, full size binocular. They work so well and don't take batteries. Still you truly have to look at how you travel. Most people even with balconies are gophers so the expense, weight and size of binoculars is honestly not worth it. If you are one of the crazy ones out there in all weather than definitely bring both a camera and binos.

[Bailey34]

Recently bought Canon binocs with stabilization. The stabilization is amazing; this is battery powered and activated with a button on top. This eliminates hand shake and ship roll. Bought them on Amazon (where else ?) for $400. Great for star gazing too. Go for it. Oh, after taking thousands of photos I never take a camera now. I infrequently use my iPhone camera which is great. To whom will you show your photos ? Boring.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Bailey34

[zackiedawg]

I used to bring both in the film days, but since digital, I've generally found that I have enough lens reach in my cameras to let that serve as my binoculars. With my DSLRs I usually have at least 420mm worth of lens with me, on 1.5x crop bodies, giving me a 630mm reach. I also often have up to 500mm lenses, and 2x teleconverters, so I can get up to 1500mm of reach with my camera lenses. Admittedly they are huge and unwieldy compared to binocs! However, I found long ago that superzoom cameras can be an excellent solution - I used to shoot with one, and have considered picking up another, despite also shooting with DSLRs and mirrorless kits. I think if it came down to buying new binoculars, or picking up a cheap superzoom, I'd probably go with the superzoom. Even if I was not using it primarily to take photos, but just for the reach! Consider that many of today's superzoom cameras are pushing some ridiculous equivalents - 1,600, 1,800+mm, all in a small palm-sized camera, PLUS stabilization, PLUS the electronic finders or LCDs that can gain up in low light, PLUS the ability to take a shot of a distant subject, then zoom in while viewing the photo to get even closer, or applying digital zoom in the finder to get even closer. I've actually been able to read the name on the side of a boat 15 miles out on a clear day - by first viewing at 1,500mm, then taking a photo, then zooming in on the photo. Hard to find a pair of binocs that can match 3,000+mm of reach, even if the quality isn't crystal clear. So much depends on if you intend to use them mostly for ID, or if you are looking for optical perfection to simply observe nature or scenes...for which a nice paid of binocs would be the way to go. Of course, if at any point you want to include photos, then the camera is the obvious answer. And if distant IDs are what you want, the superzoom idea could be the way to go.