Nikon1957

I am not sure who you mean by "you." If you mean the group here, if you look back a few pages, you will see there has been a fair amount of discussion about this. I haven't been on an HAL cruise yet. Have one booked in April. But from what I read here, a jacket is not necessary

Yeah. There still are in some places. We did that multiple times in the Caribbean in February 2023. We also did it once in Namibia on a S. African Cruise. Worked out fine. They were always there. Mostly there wasn't a language barrier - for English.

This is one of the primary reasons we joined CC a number of years ago. We had great success matching up with others on our cruises that wanted to book a small group and needed people to join (most of them charge per group or per vehicle). We even set up a couple of our own. It seems that since Covid, (and maybe other social media sites) that isn't as prevalent. Disappointing to us.

Was on Oceania Nautica in January. They have two smoking areas - an outdoor and indoor. But the indoor area is limited to cigarettes only. I enjoy a cigar. The outdoor deck was covered, but in cool weather, it is less enjoyable. Fortunately, for me, it is not "an addiction" as others have called it here, and I can just not smoke. But part of the enjoyment of being on vacation and on a cruise ship is smoking a cigar - though I do prefer being outdoors. On the newer Princess Ships, they allow smoking of all kinds (or they did as late as 2021) both in the designated outdoor area and in the humidor room.

Funny. Our paths weren't that dis-similar. I started with a really old, fully manual camera back in 1977; "moved up" to a pretty state-of-the-art (for the time) Canon TX "automatic" SLR, and then eventually to Nikon, where I stayed a pretty loyal customer until the mid-late 2000's. My first Sony camera was an NEX-6 (I regret not keeping it). I had the "kit" lens, but eventually also a Carl Zeiss 35mm f1.8 lens. I loved the form factor and the IQ. But I drank the "koolaid" that the new A7 series full-frame cameras were the answer (I wasn't wrong - just misinformed 🙂 ). I have owned the A7ri (which had some serious issues that they "fixed" with the II), an A7, and now own the A7rII. At 46 MP and full frame with no AA filter, this is probably the most advance camera I will ever own. But what I miscalculated was exactly what had attracted me in the first place - size! While the body of the A7 was somewhat smaller than my prior Nikon DSLRs, it wasn't as much as I had hoped. And the lenses were really not small at all. So, I really ended up with the same "size and weight" concerns I had with Nikon. For a serious, dedicated shoot, I love the A7rii. IQ is unquestionable. I am happy at this point and I think Nikon and Canon lost a lot of us because of their foot dragging. They both make impressive mirrorless equipment now - but I am already invested.

That just makes a whole bunch of sense! If you like the camera, and use it, you will have familiarity with it and there will be no fumbles or issues if you have to use the backup. Also, you could use different lenses on the same body.

I'll muddy the waters a bit more. I have carried a Sony RX100 for several years as my primary travel camera (own FF Sony A7Rii, but too much bulk and weight to carry). My current model, the RX100 vi, has a 28-200mm zoom equivalent. That would not be enough for distant wildlife images. But it does make nice images with the 1"" sensor. I personally wouldn't consider anything smaller. I have recently shifted from the RX100 to an Olympus M-10ii. It is a very small and compact form, but very DSLR-like if you are comfortable with that style camera. It is not quite pocketable like the RX100, but it is still very small. I have a small "man purse" I use for travel and off-ship carry and I fit the camera, extra lens, batteries and memory, along with other stuff including a hat an windbreaker/fleece in it. My longest reach with it is currently 300mm equivalent (long enough for me for my purposes). I am sure they have longer lenses and/or lens/converter combos that would get you longer. It is larger than a 1 inch sensor and I have been very happy with the IQ I am getting both sensor-wise and with the Olympus lenses (even the "consumer grade" lenses). I bought all my stuff used and it was very reasonably priced.

One other thing. On the topic of image quality. I agree with the comment that it depends on what you want to do with the shots. I have a Samsung Galaxy (next to newest iteration) and I am impressed with the digital image quality at 72 dpi, made in daylight. I also am impressed with its ability to get things right indoors. But as soon as you import the image into a post-processing software (I use PS CC), that's when things get dicy. Ironically, the megapixels are greater than the megapixels on my Olympus mirrorless. But that is not the whole story. More importantly, in my view, is the size of the sensor (size matters 🙂 ), and the age of the sensor (newer=better technology and probably less noise and aberrations). Smartphones have the smallest sensors, and that is their greatest weakness in my view (though I acknowledge that this is probably only temporary). My Sony RX100 was 1". It gave me markedly better results at roughly the same MP size. The m4/3 is even larger, and theoretically at least, should yield higher IQ. The so-called "crop sensors" are even larger. I know from observation that the IQ on my "full-frame" Sony is better. To me, it is what is the best compromise between what you are willing to carry and IQ.

New to the thread. I have been cruising for 10 years, with multiple cruises under my belt (Alaska, Mediterranean several times, other places in Europe, and Caribbean). I am also a long-time, relatively skilled photographer, having started shooting film-based 35mm in 1976, and moving on up through DSLR and now mirrorless. I am on the "old school" (I carry a camera, I use a viewfinder, and I shoot raw 99% of the time) side of this stuff. Like a couple others here, photography is a significant part of my cruising and travel. Learning to balance it out with family and other things is sometimes a challenge for me. 🙂 I carried a Nikon DSLR and a wide range zoom with me on the Alaska Cruise, as well as the next couple cruises. After a while, the weight and size of this gear began to wear on me. I picked up one of the Sony NEX line cameras. I loved the freeing nature of size and weight, while keeping the ability to shoot raw, with a viewfinder, and interchangeable lenses. A couple cruises later, I discovered the Sony RX100 line of "point & shoot" cameras. I think we have to be careful not to think of P&S cameras as somehow "inferior." Like any other camera, it depends on the model. There are (I have used and owned a couple) P&S cameras that really didn't make very good images. But the RX100's make very good images. My current one (which I rarely use anymore) has 28-200 zoom equivalent, Carl Zeiss designed lens. It makes very good images, has IS and all the controls I have in other cameras. It's downside for me is - no interchangeable lens and smallish (1") sensor. I am a recent convert to the M4/3 system for my travel (I have a Sony A7RII full frame and lenses for my "dedicated" photography shooting. But for travel, I now carry the Olympus OM10-II, with a 28-300 equivalent zoom and an 18-36 equivalent zoom. They are very small and very light and very packable. In addition, buying used made them very affordable. I have carried it on a cruise in the Caribbean, 20 days in Portugal, and a Cruise in the Baltic. You can see my results at my website: http://lightcentricphotography.com O.k., LOL, I will get to the point. My experience tells me that I want to carry a "serious" camera for travel, but I want it to be light and small. My entire travel rig fits easily in my small carryon bag along with all the other non-photo stuff I need. There is a such thing as "overpacking." I think you might be there. Most of my shooting involves walking around cities or being on off the ship excursions. I can say confidently that the times I needed wider far outweigh the times I needed longer lenses. For landscapes, I get the concept of taking several and stitching a "pano." But that may not work in street shooting and cityscapes. OTOH, there have been some shots I have "missed" because I didn't have enough reach. I have settled on my lens combo with that in mind. The 28-300 will be on the body 85% of the time. The wider one will get used in tighter quarters. For travel, it is also important to keep in mind that you will mostly be shooting in daylight, and you probably don't need those exotic wide aperture "pro" lenses. None of my travel lenses are. They do fine, an the majority of the time I am at f8 - f11. These consumer grade lenses are smaller and lighter. And many of them yield fine results (the Olympus M. Zuiko lenses are very good, even at consumer grade). Usually the 50mm is relatively inexpensive and small. So, by all means, if you can afford it, add it to your arsenal. But you really don't need it - IMO, for travel - especially cruises. FWIW, my two cents.