What to take to Alaska

[KYBOB]

We are going on an Alaska land/sea cruise tour this August that starts in Fairbanks, then off to Denali, Kenai lodge and Copper River from there to get on the Grand Princess to sail to Vancouver. Since we are doing the bus / train tour I am trying to travel light due to the limited carry on size so I am planning on taking only 2 camera bodies (yes I jumped ship from Nikon to Sony A1 & A7rV, the auto focus on these cameras the Nikon guys are still dreaming of and yes I had a Z9) with the following lenses; (all Sony) 24-70/f2.8, 70-200/f2.8 and now here is the debate I am having, either the 100-400/f4.5-5.6 or the 200-600/f5.6-6.3 I do have a 1.4 teleconverter too. I am wafting between the two lenses because having been to Alaska before on just a cruise that did not include the land portion I know the more reach the better. So what is a guy who has a take everything including the kitchen sink with him mentally that needs therapy for to do? My DW has shockingly suggested to take; egads, the horror of this thought and I am trembling just thinking about it ……. 2 cameras and JUST TWO lenses! 

[sight-sea-er]

As a fellow member of the "bring them all cuz ya never know!" camp, I will say that I am trying to keep myself to 2 lenses for my Alaska cruise this summer.  I've never been to Alaska, though, so you may want to stop reading here. 

 

That disclaimer aside, I've been doing a lot of reading in this forum and a few others and have found peace in deciding to bring lenses equivalent to 24-70 and 200-600.  Okay, and a wide, fast prime for onboard the ship (it's so tiny, it hardly counts, right?).  The consensus seems to be that you either want wide for landscapes and nearby animals, or the longest you can manage for wildlife afar, and that there isn't much between those extremes.

 

Now I will wait anxiously for other members to contradict this and before I know it, I will be bringing my kitchen sink right there with you.

[KYBOB]

8 hours ago, sight-sea-er said:

As a fellow member of the "bring them all cuz ya never know!" camp, I will say that I am trying to keep myself to 2 lenses for my Alaska cruise this summer.  I've never been to Alaska, though, so you may want to stop reading here. 

 

That disclaimer aside, I've been doing a lot of reading in this forum and a few others and have found peace in deciding to bring lenses equivalent to 24-70 and 200-600.  Okay, and a wide, fast prime for onboard the ship (it's so tiny, it hardly counts, right?).  The consensus seems to be that you either want wide for landscapes and nearby animals, or the longest you can manage for wildlife afar, and that there isn't much between those extremes.

 

Now I will wait anxiously for other members to contradict this and before I know it, I will be bringing my kitchen sink right there with you.

Ok now I am wanting to thrown in the 16-35/f2.8, but I have been wanting one of those 14mm/f1.8 GM,  for those on board the ship shots and the train arriving at the station. You know the shot down low as the train approaches, I can see the shot now. So maybe 4 lenses?

[Gardyloo]

Please don't take this wrong - I've been a camera junkie for... let's just say a l-o-n-g time, but with a camera with a 50mp sensor and a 600mm (equivalent) lens, what do you plan to do with the images?  Make roadside billboards?

 

Now obviously this is your call and a personal preference one.  One of the reasons for taking such a long lens (I assume) would be the chance of capturing some images of wildlife at a great distance.  Now given your itinerary (if it's the one I think it is - starting on August 26?) the obvious location where that might be possible would be the three days in and around Denali NP.  However, given the park road closure past MP 43 and the relative distance from Princess' hotels to the park, you might find yourself with fewer opportunities to see wildlife than would be the case otherwise.  Not saying it won't happen, of course, but the odds are the odds.  What you WILL see is the tundra turning into glorious fall colors, snow starting to appear on the mid-level mountaintops (as opposed to the permanent glaciers on the big ones) and maybe some roadside animals - maybe moose, maybe a bear... but smaller animals at a great distance will be hard to spot regardless of the lens length.

 

Later, like at the Cooper Landing hotel, it's not an especially rich wildlife area (except for fishermen flailing the water for late silver salmon) but you might see some moose, so a mid-length zoom would be good.  Any farther than mid-zoom distance and they'd be in the trees, beyond any lens' reach.  

 

Now you might want the long zoom on any excursions you make from the ship - whales etc., but there the question of vibration from the vessel and image stabilization will come into play.  Your call.

 

I've been on a fair number of African safaris where having a versatile zoom (28-300 or so was my default) - was the best approach, because the last thing you want to do when you're around the beasts is to have to fumble with your hardware while the lion/hyena/leopard decides to vanish into the "thicket" as the locals call it.  Same goes for the bear in Denali; there one second, into the willows the next  

 

So I'd think twice about bringing too much glass and think about rapid-reaction equipment instead.  Just my view.

[Hezu]

21 hours ago, Gardyloo said:

Please don't take this wrong - I've been a camera junkie for... let's just say a l-o-n-g time, but with a camera with a 50mp sensor and a 600mm (equivalent) lens, what do you plan to do with the images?  Make roadside billboards?

As another owner of α1 (and α7R III and α7R IV), I admit that the 50 (or 42 or 60) mpix sensors might be a tad overkill in terms of resolution for what I actually need, but at least high megapixel sensors have the distinct advantage that you can happily make serious cropping and yet the final size still has plenty of resolution. And then it is worth noting that these new cameras do offer several other useful features that can be even more significant reasons to get the camera. For example in case of α1, I find the superior autofocus, backlit sensor that allows to use electronic shutter (and silent shooting) without any rolling shutter effects, no viewfinder backouts and high frame rate shooting far more significant reasons than the sensor resolution as the reasons why I want to use this camera.

And despite that you can easily crop out details out of these high resolution images, I think there is still adventages in using longer focal lengths instead. Especially in the case that you want to print out a huge wall-sized poster.

 

And regarding the original question: I think if I had been heading to Alaska (never been there so far), I think I might lean on taking Sony FE 5.6-6.3/200-600 G OSS rather than the shorter telephoto lenses, although my latest lens acquisition, Tamron 50-400 mm F/4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD would be a serious contender since it has such useful focal length range in far more compact size compared to Sony 200-600G. In fact, who knows, perhaps I would bring both lenses along and then depending on day's programme choose which one to carry around.

[Crew News]

The probability of rain in Alaska is very high so whatever camera/lenses chosen, weatherproofing is a big issue.

[KYBOB]

Thanks for the reply's! All lenses are weather sealed plus I have a rain cover (ThinkTank rain cover).  The 100-400, external zoom, is the same size as a 70-200 f/2.8 when at 100 and compact lighter to carry than the 200-600 which is a internal zoom. It is about the same size as a Nikon 200-500. I would love to take both but I am limited on space, and having to make the choice of one or the other. 

I typically shoot birds, and some wildlife with landscapes thrown in. I was hoping for some birds and wildlife in Denali and other areas. Whales in Juneau, really want to go to Pack Creek for the bears but I cannot fit the whale tour and Pack Creek in the same day.

 

Our tour starts August the 8 in Fairbanks (were flying in 3 days early, renting a car to see what we can and do some hiking, etc) We be getting of the ship of Aug 26 in Vancouver will that be any better for wildlife sightings? I know only a few weeks.  If not I am excited about the fall colors.   

 

Yes the high pixel count allows to crop significantly and not loose resolution and you can make very large prints. I have a few prints that are about 6' long. 

 

[Aauclair]

Bring them all:). Alaska was one of my favourite cruises, with many of my favourite images. I tend to print my images quite large and would have been devastated without my 70-200 f2.8. Whales off the ship, islands covered in seals, a glacier calving in front of me, park rangers jumping from their boat to ours...never a dull moment. But then my 50 f1.2 for the wildflowers and moss in Juneau and family moments. And then my 24-70 F2.8 for everything in between. 

 

You will love this cruise, as a photographer. Bring mittens and a hat, it gets chilly on top but make sure you get out there! Enjoy.

[eileeshb]

On 2/2/2023 at 10:39 PM, Aauclair said:

Bring them all:). Alaska was one of my favourite cruises, with many of my favourite images. I tend to print my images quite large and would have been devastated without my 70-200 f2.8. Whales off the ship, islands covered in seals, a glacier calving in front of me, park rangers jumping from their boat to ours...never a dull moment. But then my 50 f1.2 for the wildflowers and moss in Juneau and family moments. And then my 24-70 F2.8 for everything in between. 

 

You will love this cruise, as a photographer. Bring mittens and a hat, it gets chilly on top but make sure you get out there! Enjoy.

Did you feel the 70-200 had sufficient range on the boats? 
I have a sigma ex 70-200 f2.8 but I also have a canon EF L 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 and a Sigma EX 100-300 f4.5-5.6 the canon lens is a legacy of my sports photography and the sigma 100-300 was my late father’s which was used for surf photography.  Both the longer lenses are over a decade old, heck I’m pretty sure the sigma is from 2006. I’m in two minds as to whether it’s worth hauling one of the longer lenses with me when the shorter one is faster.

[KYBOB]

On 2/4/2023 at 4:20 PM, eileeshb said:

Did you feel the 70-200 had sufficient range on the boats? 
I have a sigma ex 70-200 f2.8 but I also have a canon EF L 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 and a Sigma EX 100-300 f4.5-5.6 the canon lens is a legacy of my sports photography and the sigma 100-300 was my late father’s which was used for surf photography.  Both the longer lenses are over a decade old, heck I’m pretty sure the sigma is from 2006. I’m in two minds as to whether it’s worth hauling one of the longer lenses with me when the shorter one is faster.

On our first trip to Alaska we did a B2B out of Vancouver which was a cruise only and took excursions off the ship while in port. That time I was not weight or space limited so took my rolling camera case and just about every lens I owned.  I have been able to look back and sort the photos in Lightroom based on lens and have found; I used my 24-70 /2.8 and 200-500 the most followed closely by the 70-200 /f2.8, then the 105/2.8 macro and the least the 14-24 f/2.8 along with 3 big dslr camera bodies. (Before mirrorless cameras). All the shots I took with the 200-500 were all zoomed out to 450-500 range. So that is why I too am in a quandary as to what to take knowing that the more reach the better. 

[DiverJohn]

I am thinking I will pick up a used 5d iv and a used 200-400 l and toss my 1.4 tc on it, will also have my 50d with a 17-55 efs and my 5dii with my 70-200 2.8. Thinking the bigger sensor and longer reach for the wildlife, I have not upgraded in many years so I am due lol, have to keep the 5dii because it fits my underwater housing and strobes hope wifey doesn’t mind much …..

[kbnovak]

I was on a 14-day cruise-tour in July with my Sony a6600 and 16-55 2.8 and 100-400.  I also had along my Sony RX1007.   That combo worked for every aspect of the trip, including whale watching, glacier viewing, and Denali NP.

[eileeshb]

On 2/7/2023 at 7:05 PM, DiverJohn said:

I am thinking I will pick up a used 5d iv and a used 200-400 l and toss my 1.4 tc on it, will also have my 50d with a 17-55 efs and my 5dii with my 70-200 2.8. Thinking the bigger sensor and longer reach for the wildlife, I have not upgraded in many years so I am due lol, have to keep the 5dii because it fits my underwater housing and strobes hope wifey doesn’t mind much …..

yikes... no way am I hauling 3 dSLRs with me, juggling 2 is my limit and I'll have my phone for the wide shots if needed when I've longer lenses on the cameras. If my friend decides not to come along with me I might bring the mirrorless camera kit as it's small and light for drier days. 

 

[Aauclair]

On 2/4/2023 at 4:20 PM, eileeshb said:

Did you feel the 70-200 had sufficient range on the boats? 
I have a sigma ex 70-200 f2.8 but I also have a canon EF L 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 and a Sigma EX 100-300 f4.5-5.6 the canon lens is a legacy of my sports photography and the sigma 100-300 was my late father’s which was used for surf photography.  Both the longer lenses are over a decade old, heck I’m pretty sure the sigma is from 2006. I’m in two minds as to whether it’s worth hauling one of the longer lenses with me when the shorter one is faster.

I was really happy with many of the images I got with my 70-200 f2.8 - great shots of passing islands, seals and whales and it was more than enough for the glaciers. I have printed many of those images and they remain favourites. I love shooting off the top of the ship while sailing. I have the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 now and I am debating between the two of them for my next cruise in a few weeks ( so not much help there am I?). You can't go wrong with the faster one, but what if you run into Alaskan surfers...then you might miss the 100-300;). ( I am joking not joking...I love photographing surfers, one of the reasons I got the 100-400 this year ). I love the challenge of thinking which two lenses I would bring if I could only bring two...it would have to be the 70-200 F2.8 and then my Sigma Art 35mm F1.4. And then I would sneak my FujiX100 on as well;). 

[Kinny]

Last cruise out of Seattle, I took my A9II with my 70-200 and it caught some wild life, but for some reason I preferred my Nikon D500 with my 200-500.  Around the ship, the A9II is spectacular with my 35 F1.2 and 50 F1.2  I actually took some bald eagle shots at Ketchikan with my D500 and 28-200.  Even the lens isn't that great, it performed admirably.  

[byargertx]

This is the classic issue I am also wrestling with now, in preparation for our June 2023 cruise to Alaska. I am also a Sony photographer, with both full-frame (A7RIV and A7C), APS-C (A6400 and A6000), and 1” sensor all in one RX10 MIV (24-600mm). My last trip to Alaska in 2016, I took my full-frame rig (A7II and A7RII) and took three lenses: FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS, FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS, FE 28mm F2 OSS. I took about 3,000 pics and all but 50 were with my 24-240mm OSS lens. Throughout the trip, though, I felt I didn’t have enough lens a lot of the time. Frankly, looking at my pics, I was either in the 24-50mm range or the 200-240mm range the bulk of the time.

This time out, I’m not taking my full-frame gear, primarily because I am having a lot of shoulder issues and I need to keep the weight down as much as possible. So I am taking the following:

Sony RX10 MIV (Zoom range 24-600)

Sony A6400

Sony A6000

Tamron 17–70mm F2.8 Di III-A VC RXD (stabilized)

Tamron 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD(stabilized)

Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS

Sony E 18-105mm F4.0 G PZ OSS

 

These are all compact, OSS lenses, including the Tamrons, since my two A6xxx cameras are not stabilized.

 

If I were going with my full-frame gear and weight were not a problem, it would be:

Sony A7C

Sony A7R MKIVA

FE Zeiss Vario-Tessar *T 16-35mm F4.0 ZA OSS

FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS

Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD (FE) (stabilized)

FE 35mm F1.4 GM

 

In summary, based on my experience you need and will use wide (17-35mm) and long (200-400mm) more than anything else, so if you can take anything longer than 200mm, it will really help. I am seeing great reviews on the new Tamron full-frame 28-200mm f2.8-5.6. An all-in-one lens works best so you are not changing lenses all the time. In addition, everything I am taking is weather-sealed.

Edited February 27, 2023 by byargertx

[KYBOB]

On 2/27/2023 at 12:09 PM, byargertx said:

This is the classic issue I am also wrestling with now, in preparation for our June 2023 cruise to Alaska. I am also a Sony photographer, with both full-frame (A7RIV and A7C), APS-C (A6400 and A6000), and 1” sensor all in one RX10 MIV (24-600mm). My last trip to Alaska in 2016, I took my full-frame rig (A7II and A7RII) and took three lenses: FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS, FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS, FE 28mm F2 OSS. I took about 3,000 pics and all but 50 were with my 24-240mm OSS lens. Throughout the trip, though, I felt I didn’t have enough lens a lot of the time. Frankly, looking at my pics, I was either in the 24-50mm range or the 200-240mm range the bulk of the time.

This time out, I’m not taking my full-frame gear, primarily because I am having a lot of shoulder issues and I need to keep the weight down as much as possible. So I am taking the following:

Sony RX10 MIV (Zoom range 24-600)

Sony A6400

Sony A6000

Tamron 17–70mm F2.8 Di III-A VC RXD (stabilized)

Tamron 18-300mm F3.5-6.3 Di III-A VC VXD(stabilized)

Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS

Sony E 18-105mm F4.0 G PZ OSS

 

These are all compact, OSS lenses, including the Tamrons, since my two A6xxx cameras are not stabilized.

 

If I were going with my full-frame gear and weight were not a problem, it would be:

Sony A7C

Sony A7R MKIVA

FE Zeiss Vario-Tessar *T 16-35mm F4.0 ZA OSS

FE 24-105mm f/4 G OSS

Tamron 50-400mm F4.5-6.3 Di III VC VXD (FE) (stabilized)

FE 35mm F1.4 GM

 

In summary, based on my experience you need and will use wide (17-35mm) and long (200-400mm) more than anything else, so if you can take anything longer than 200mm, it will really help. I am seeing great reviews on the new Tamron full-frame 28-200mm f2.8-5.6. An all-in-one lens works best so you are not changing lenses all the time. In addition, everything I am taking is weather-sealed.

Another kitchen sink kind of person. Well as of now I am leaning on taking the following;

Sony A1 with Sony 100-400 and 1x teleconverter 

Sony A7rV with 24-70 f2.8

Sony 70-200 /f2.8

Sony 14mm /f1.8 for the train shot and interiors

I have settled on the taking the 100-400 because of its small size. I am thinking it will be easier to use on various tours. We have planned a small boat whale watch tour that I will have both cameras one with the 100-400 and one with the 70-200. I have decided not to do the bear tour and to save that for  another time when we will be doing a cruise only and not a land / sea tour.  

[sight-sea-er]

Lenses aside, what other photo gear would anyone recommend a first-time Alaska cruiser bring? FWIW, I'm doing the inner passage and train to Denali in June. Also, it's a family trip (3 generations), so not exclusively focused on photography, hence avoiding the kitchen sink approach. 

I'm planning on a rain cover based on suggestions here.

Would a monopod or mini tripod add much value?

Has anyone used those rubber lampshade-looking lens hoods? Lots of shots through glass have me worrying about glare. @KYBOB I saw your pics from the Taku lodge flights in another thread. Did you take any special precautions to get those clean shots through the window?

Thanks in advance! 

 

[Crew News]

52 minutes ago, sight-sea-er said:

Lenses aside, what other photo gear would anyone recommend a first-time Alaska cruiser bring? FWIW, I'm doing the inner passage and train to Denali in June. Also, it's a family trip (3 generations), so not exclusively focused on photography, hence avoiding the kitchen sink approach. 

I'm planning on a rain cover based on suggestions here.

Would a monopod or mini tripod add much value?

Has anyone used those rubber lampshade-looking lens hoods? Lots of shots through glass have me worrying about glare. @KYBOB I saw your pics from the Taku lodge flights in another thread. Did you take any special precautions to get those clean shots through the window?

Thanks in advance! 

 

Bring a tripod only if you will be by yourself or with only a few others.  I carry only a monopod to Alaska now after a fellow passenger kicked over my tripod (saved camera just before it hit the ground). 

 

Do not attempt to take photos through the domed glass of the Denali train unless you want to spend hours trying to remove the rainbow of colors in post processing.  Go out on the platform between the cars and get some great photos and maybe capture a moose.

 

For photos from fixed-wing aircraft, use a polarizer to fight the glare and try to keep your lens perpendicular to the window.

 

Taku Lodge with polarizer from fixed-wing aircraft

 

Train from Denali to Anchorage taken from train platform.

 

 

Denali with polarizer from fixed-wing aircraft

 

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by Crew News

[KYBOB]

I have used one of the lens shade things below. Was kind of difficult to use required 2 hands ( one on the camera and one to hold the thing to the glass. I also had to cut out some of the inside to get it to fit over my lens. The other issue I had with it was I could not use auto focus with the glass so had to use manual to get it to focus past the glass. I have seen a different one some YouTuber had that stuck to the glass kind like a plunger for a toilet, but cannot find it.

I eventually just gave up and like Crew News said used a polarizer I have one on every lens I carry, instead of the UV filter everyone recommends to protect the lens. The down side is I loose 2 stops of light with it. So that means I need fast glass (f2.8) lenses or higher ISO. The best protection tough is is the lens hood which never is off the lens except for when it might need to be taken off for transport in my camera bag. This will also cut down the glare from the windows. 

 

Another thing to do is wear dark clothing at least a dark shirt will reduce the glare. I also hold the camera touching the glass (actually the lens hood) or almost touching, which works like the rubber thing. I also positioned the camera either perpendicular to me or slightly behind at the bottom of the glass. 
 

The shots to Taku lodge I was in the very back of the plane and was the only one back there, kind of by choice and well I am a big person. So the pilot for weight distribution put me in the back and so I would have room for my legs. Every time I am on one of those planes I end up being in the back. This allowed me to shot out both sides of the plane which is fine by me. Below are some more shots out a window of a plane, not Alaska but another famous port. I was not in the back this time.

 

Edited March 27, 2023 by KYBOB
Spelling

[KYBOB]

I forgot some of the other junk I take is a small point n shoot camera, Canon G7X Mark III, binoculars (waterproof anti fog) lots of extra batteries (remember I am a Sony shooter) two battery chargers for the Sony’s, Anker power bank and charger(they have one that I can charge 4 things at once saves plug space and luggage. Several lens cloths, rocket blower, lens cleaner, sensor swabs, lots of memory cards and small first aid kit. I do take a small table top tripod for the Canon to set up for shots of my wife and I together when I cannot find someone to take the shot for me. I either set it on something or use as a handle to hold the camera (kind of like a selfy stick). On a cruise I rarely use a tripod so have quit taking one. I do take a mono pod especially if I do any hiking works also as a walking stick. 
 

And one of the most important things a dry bag. These are fairly cheap and run around 20-30$ and can be rolled up in your pack or used as your pack but it has no pockets. I have 2 one I can put my day pack in and one that will fit just my camera. It rains in Alaska. These come in handy also if you take a raft excursion. 
 

 

[Glaciers]

I quit chasing new gear about the time mirrorless was getting going.  Usually took two bodies and several lenses with a range of 16-600 but trying to quit taking the camera bag and scale things down. Used to take the tripod but rarely used it.

 

Although I certainly still take some of my gear but in my attempt to scale down, I’ve began using my phone for photos more often. Picked up the iPhone 14 Pro and if I need something big enough to print, the RAW files are 20mb+ and edit/post process well.  It works amazingly well. I don’t always have my camera gear but I do always have my phone. There is a bit of a learning curve when using the phone properly for photography.   It would be marginally acceptable for a whale watch or shooting the mountain goats along Gloomy Knob in Glacier Bay but does wonderful with landscapes and wide interior shots.   

[sight-sea-er]

A polarizing filter sounds much better than messing with a rubber hood against the window.  I have one that I've used to cut down glare from water, but sadly it didn't occur to use it for glass. Those images are compelling evidence that the filter will work great. And good suggestion on the trains, take the windows out of the equation. No need to warn me not to apply that to flights, figured that one out myself! 

 

As for tripods, I would at most carry a mini for the use case KYB described, getting a group shot if no one else is around. Full-sized tripods are usually too heavy and bulky to mess with, and apparently risky, so glad you saved the camera, CN! 

 

I think I'll add dry bag to my list of things to consider. My camera bag... OK, bags, who am I kidding, anyone in this forum knows better... is(are!) water-resistant with a waterproof cover if really needed. I'll be doing some flatwater kayaking at one port, but I think I'll leave the camera behind for that excursion. 

 

Thanks for the suggestions! 

[pierces]

49 minutes ago, sight-sea-er said:

A polarizing filter sounds much better than messing with a rubber hood against the window.  I have one that I've used to cut down glare from water, but sadly it didn't occur to use it for glass.

 

Note that most helicopter and other light aircraft use Lexan (plexiglass) for the windows. A polarizer will interact with the polarizing nature of the plastic and add pretty but distracting rainbow colors to your images. A rubber hood and a black long sleeve shirt is a pretty good solution to minimize reflections.

 

Dave

[eileeshb]

I just got a new tripod with a detachable leg to use as a monopod. The only reason I’m contemplating bringing a tripod with me is for the chance of catching the northern lights as my sailing is in the middle of October. I’m planning on the monopod for the white pass train and possibly the whale watching boat. I am however considering switching out the head that came with the tripod as it’s quite heavy relative to the tripod itself. 
I’ve also gotten a more travel friendly backpack which includes a waterproof cover and fits the 100-400mm attached to a camera body. As well as the second camera body and 2 shorter lenses. I already have the gore-tex sports shield covers for the cameras in a couple of sizes. It sounds like I need to get my hands on at least one polarising filter…. 
I’ve not used any filters other than the UV or O-haze variety so if anyone has suggestions on a type that would work for potentially spotting the whales underwater I’d greatly appreciate it.