Hezu

And worth remembering that there is never absolute guarantee for seeing auroras. First, there has to be suitable space weather, which may not occur every night on the latitudes where Reykjavík is located, although it is sufficiently north that the phenomenon is still reasonably common. And if there is suitable disturbances in the magnetosphere that would allow auroras to occur, to actually see these, you need clear skies and given that Icelandic weather can be quite variable, there is fair chance that there is cloud cover that makes it impossible to see northern lights. Also if you would like to do dog sledding on snow, I think September is too early for seeing snow, at least outside mountain tops and glaciers, but these are not locations where you do dog sledding.

Not all of Norway, there is one special exception: Svalbard. Given its special status goods sold there include no VAT and thus alcohol prices are significantly cheaper there than elsewhere in Norway. On the other hand, given the remoteness of this archipelago, most fresh food items do cost more in Svalbard as there is high transportation costs. And Hurtigruten does offer also cruises around Svalbard, but obviously these are more of the expedition variety than the classic coastal cruises.

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.

Worth a note that Trieste and whole Italy is part of Schengen area and within that area there is generally no border controls between countries, only on outer borders of the Schengen area, thus if your cruise itinerary had previous port also elsewhere in Schengen area (eg. Croatia or Greece) then it is normal that there is no border controls. Also since most Schengen area countries are also EU member states and EU countries form a customs union, the customs formalities when traveling between EU countries are quite relaxed. And of course there can be additional international agreements that make border formalities simple also in other cases.

If I'm not mistaken, the quays in Eteläsatama and Katajanokka will only host smaller cruise ships as the navigable route into those is too tight for bigger ships, the larger cruise ships will thus always use Hernesaari quays. Although the definition of small cruise ship is here not exactly super small as Eteläsatama and Katajanokka have a regular cruiseferry traffic with ships that are little over 200 m long. Of course, that is still signficantly less than the length of Celebrity Apex, which is 306 m long.

Yes, although the disturbances in the magnetosphere can occur year around, during the late spring and summer there is too much light during the nights to see Northern lights. However, in the southern hemisphere it would be possible to see aurora australis that time of the year as then there days are short and nights long, although there tends to be fewer locations in suitable latitudes to observe this phenomenon compared to suitable northern hemisphere locations for aurora borealis. Although I don't have any experience in winter cruising, the opportunities to see auroras while on land might be increased by the fact that winter days in the north are short, areas above arctic circle for a while there is polar night during which sun does not rise above the horizon at all and you get only short dusk/dawn period with some faint light in the horizon. Further north you go, the polar night lasts longer. Of course you could see auroras also when you're aboard a ship, although the ship lights may hinder this a bit and the idea of aurora photography aboard is pretty much doomed: you want to take long exposures on a tripod, but since while underway the ship always shakes a bit, your camera setup does not stay static sufficiently long. And I guess it is worth a note that naked eye may not see auroras as well as cameras taking those long exposures.

And even if the sky is dark, another requirement for seeing auroras is clear skies, if it is cloudy you can forget seeing any even if the space weather would otherwise predict wonderful colours in the night sky.

And water proof or at least water resistant outer layer could be useful addition in the case it rains (especially if the rain comes in wet form rather than as snow), although the rainy weather will also mean that there is zero chance to view any aurora as the clouds will block the view. But assuming you are willing to do also other outdoor activities, keeping yourself dry will make the experience more enjoyable.

Finnair does not operate 787s since its entire fleet is from Airbus (or there is also Embraers and ATR-72s with Finnair livery on shorthaul routes, although technically these are operated by NoRRA subsidiary), so either you are looking at a codeshare flight (presumably on either American Airways or British Airways) or you are looking at Finnair flight that in reality will be on A330 or A350.

Those more familiar with Ålesund can chime in and provide better answers, but I believe you could fairly easily explore the area on your own. Although of course you may need to get some sort of transportation if you want to go on a hike further away from the town. Also worth a note that Norwegians celebrate Midsummer Day on June 24th, so that may have affect what services are available that day.

Although I would say that the currency is not that big issue: majority of European countries use euros these days and in most other countries you might survive without any cash, especially in Nordic countries you could pay pretty much anything with cards.

Almost all intra-European flights are operated with equipment that offers just economy and business class - or actually, in most cases strictly speaking the whole plane is equipped with similar seats and part of the front of the plane is just designated as business class and assuming the usual 3+3 seating in narrow body airliner, the middle seats are blocked and only the window and aisle seats are occupied. Then of course, there are usually some difference in meal and drink service that differentiate economy and business class.

The nearest airport is Rostock Laage Airport, but it does not really have any significant connections to any airline hubs or like (eg. for the current week there is just couple holiday flights to destinations in Canary Islands and Egypt). But as the previous posters answered, you could always take train(s) from elsewhere in Germany.

Note that if your plan is for October, then you won't encounter midnight sun as that phenomenon occurs only in summer (and late May). However, in October you might have a chance to see northern lights as there will be less daylight hours and dark nights. Also if I'm not mistaken, in October there are fewer cruise offerings in these parts of the world compared to the peak season in the summer.

I think this might be partially due to the fact that Olympus as a company hasn't ceased to exist, it continues to produce some other products than camera equipment.

Some years ago I took a short cruise around Svalbard on Hurtigruten's MS Nordstjernen. We did see a polar bear, several different whales, seals, few walruses, Svalbard reindeer and number of birds. Most of the wildlife was seen from some distance, but of course that might be a safer option, especially regarding the polar bears. On the landings we made, there was always few guides with rifles on watch to ensure that polar bears did't attack us. Our trip was in June, so I don't know if it would be vastly different in August - maybe then there would be even less snow and ice on some places and maybe the first migrating birds may have left Svalbard and already heading back to south. And of course, since we are talking about wildlife, there is never absolute guarantee that you will see all the animals you would like to see, although on certain places like some bird colonies should be quite reliable locations to see something. I think this sort of cruise offered quite good look on the Svalbard and its flora and fauna, although of course you might see even slightly more on a longer and more expensive photography oriented expedition cruise on even smaller vessel (being quite old, Nordstjernen isn't exactly a massive cruise ship either), but for price the offering was fairly good value.

And remember that regardless which cruise you take, there can't be ever 100% guarantee that you will see auroras, even if there would be suitable space weather, you will need a clear dark skies to actually see anything. Also be prepared that this phenomenon might occur in middle of night rather than soon after sunset or right before sunrise (assuming you are not above the artic circle during the polar night).

Only thing that outright pops into my mind is Google Maps, which includes markings of many well-known sights and viewpoints. On the other hand, I would also somewhat question the need to take shots of the same views that everybody else photographs.

Have you already thought what other lenses you will bring along?

I not sure that sort of solution works that well with binoculars and at least that does not offer one of the benefits of finnstick: making holding binoculars less strenuous as you can keep your hands down while holding the stick and not raise them to hold the binoculars.

I have to mention that there is also another, cheaper approach to stabilize binoculars (and this could be even combined with those image stabilized binoculars!): a finnstick. It is basicly a short pole used to hold binoculars on the eye level. Originally these have been hand-made (often from wooden ice hockey sticks), but these days there is even few commercial models available (disclaimer: I'm talking from my Finnish perspective, situation might be slightly different elsewhere) and one approach is also tripod attachment for binoculars and a light monopod (generally in non-extended form). If my explanation is too vague, please do an image seach for "finnstick" and you'll find several pictures of the device, often in use.

Of course that is one more challenge in northern lights observations that these are only visible once it gets dark and majority of people probably want to spend their nights sleeping. I managed to see (and photograph) my so far best auroras this March. But this light show did not start until middle of night, somewhere around 1:20 am, but I happened to be awake that late although I was already ready to go to bed, but once I got the aurora alerts and verified that I can see these with a naked eye from my home window in Helsinki, I sure wasn't yet going to bed! Granted, I was then still too lazy to head outdoors to find a better viewpoint. And regarding the darkness requirement: few weeks later there was prediction that space weather could be promising for auroras even in southern Finland and decided to check it I could capture these from Suomenlinna, which is known decent spotting place since there is fewer light pollution compared to most of Helsinki. Unfortunately no luck that night, the geomagnetic disturbances took place already few hours before sunset and once it got dark there was some cloud cover too. At least I heard an eagle owl howling somewhere in the vicinity of Suomenlinna dockyard that evening.

If you are lucky, there is a small chance to see northern lights, but since these locations are still in quite southern latitudes, suitably strong auroras occur only occasionally and the colours can be more faint than further north. And of course, there still the premise that you don't have too many clouds in the sky when the phenomenon occurs as clouds sure will cover even the brightest auroras.

I would say non-existent given that the midnight sun phenomenon lasts pretty much whole July on those latitudes and dark clear skies is the first requirement for seeing auroras. I would say the first times, when you might see any northern lights is in latter half of August and even then the better observation points might be slightly more southern locations than Honningsvåg.

Although you are already eyeing the cheaper alternatives, I have to mention that Sony RX10 IV has few tricks that makes it superior to the competing models and worth the premium. First, the phase detect autofocus is much faster and more reliable than the contrast detect systems used by the others. Also RX10 IV trumps in burst rates and you can shoot up to 24 frames/second. So if you want to capture action (eg. flying birds) RX10 IV might be still the best choice despite the high price. Also worth checking if there would be any cameras available on the second hand market, that could shave off some of the price.