Galapagos Photography

I went to the Galapagos with some friends and family in July 2008; this is a report on what worked for me in terms of taking pictures. If you're going and you're interested in photography, maybe this can help.

The Pictures

The most important thing: here's how the picture came out, separated into three galleries of about 30 photos each. Click to see them.


Gallery 1: Birds

Gallery 2: On Land

Gallery 3: In the Sea

Lens Selection

What lens(es) to bring? For my full-frame Canon 5D, I brought the 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f4 IS, and 100-400mm. Interestingly, all four of these had been recommended in different forums as the "perfect lens for Galapagos" or "the one I used for 95% of my shots." How did it work for me? Well, here's a histogram of the percentage of my photos at different focal lengths and the lenses that cover those lengths (not the lenses actually used for the shots):

In summary, here is my preference for lenses (for a full-frame sensor):

  1. 100-400mm (84% of my shots). Possible alternatives: 70-300mm IS or 400mm prime with teleconverters. (Renowed bird photographer Arthur Morris went to Galapagos about the same time as me, and took the 400mm f4 DO. He got great results as he always does, but the close focus distance of 3.5 meters meant he had to fuss with extension tubes when he wanted to get closer (and of course teleconverters when he wanted more zoom). And he didn't have the 100-399mm range. On his previous trip he lugged the 500mm f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS.)
  2. 17-40mm f4 (14%). Possible alternatives: 16-35mm; 10-22mm on crop camera. I could/should have left the 24-105 home; 24mm wasn't wide enough for most of the times I wanted wide. Between the 100-400 and the 17-40, I've got 98% of my shots covered; you could easily stop there.
  3. 15mm fisheye (0%). Right before I left, my friend and Galapagos expert Frank Sulloway recommended a 15mm fisheye (he says the Sigma is better than the Canon). Fisheyes had never appealed to me before, and I didn't have time to get one, but in retrospect I really think Frank was right. 9% of my pictures were at 17mm; for some of them I wanted to go wider. If I could do it over and bring just three lenses, the third would be a fisheye. (Frank also gave good advice with "I probably use my 16-35 mm lens and my 70-300 mm lens more than any of the other lenses.")
  4. 70-200mm f4 IS (21%). Yes, 21% of my shots were in the range of this lens, but most of those were actually taken with the 100-400. The days I did carry the 70-200 I did appreciate it was lighter, but I could easily have done without it.


100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS

17-40mm f4 L

15mm f2.8 fisheye

70-200mm f4 L

Other Equipment

Every day (usually twice a day) you transfer to shore in dinghys. Nobody had any mishaps getting gear wet, but I still think it is a good idea to pack gear in a dry sack. I also felt that a photo vest makes more sense than a bag; easier access to lenses etc. when they're in your front pocket rather than on your back. Others agree. So leave your bag on the boat, wrap your gear in your vest, put it in your dry sack, and when you are safely and dryly on shore, put on the vest.

Leave your tripod home; the few who brought tripods on our trip abandoned them after the first or second day. Several people used monopods to good effect, both as a camera support and as a walking stick.

Don't forget to bring something to clean your sensor. if you change lenses you will get spots on your sensor.

Flash photography of animals is not allowed, so don't bother with a flash.

You'll probably want something for underwater pictures while snorkling. I used the underwater housing for the Canon G9; several people used waterproof cameras such as the Pentax W30 or the Olympus 770SW. The housings seem to work better.


Dinghy

Dry Sack

Vest

Monopod

Sensor cleaner

Underwater housing

Other Sources of Advice


Peter Norvig