So, I've placed a pre-order for an RF 400 2.8 + extenders. Hoping to borrow one from CPS to try it before I get a call from my dealer.. Should be a very good lens for my style of shooting and preferred subjects.
ChrisHA wrote:
If I had the RF400/2.8 - drool! - I wouldn’t worry so much about high ISO noise; but, the R5 is for my RF100-500. I originally bought the R3 because I wanted the larger batteries for my EF500 II/1.4x, not to mention the EVF, FPS and ruggedness. At Ndutu where I go to find cheetah families, we can drive off road; but, we always give mamas a lot of space for successful hunts and relaxed family time. Thus, the need for a longer rig. I don’t know how much longer that I’ll be doing wild cat family centric trips, so swamping out my arsenal of EF lenses at this late stage is too much effort IMHO.
You scored with all of the babies and your RF400 really shined . Where did you find the leopard cubs? I really miss seeing them as it’s been quite a while. ...Show more →
Chris, no doubt the R3 is an amazing camera I shoot it side by side with the R5 as well but only for super fast action. R3/500 will be an amazing combo. In fact if you spend a lot of time with Cheetahs you might get that opportunity to attempt capturing a cheetah in flight. As for leopard cubs, I haven't posted any photos yet so maybe you are confusing me with someone else who posted photos of the leopard cubs. The only leopard cub I saw was about 1yr old and he was almost the same size as his Mother, and that was in the Mara North Conservancy.
So, I've placed a pre-order for an RF 400 2.8 + extenders. Hoping to borrow one from CPS to try it before I get a call from my dealer.. Should be a very good lens for my style of shooting and preferred subjects.
I think you will love it. I shot it mostly at 400 but did use the 1.4x and 2x occasionally just to mix it up. I'm sure you're already aware, but this time of the year where I visited the heat shimmer sets in fairly early in the day so the longer glass will be affected late morning when it starts warming up. It's even worse shooting at large apertures.
artsupreme wrote:
I think you will love it. I shot it mostly at 400 but did use the 1.4x and 2x occasionally just to mix it up. I'm sure you're already aware, but this time of the year where I visited the heat shimmer sets in fairly early in the day so the longer glass will be affected late morning when it starts warming up. It's even worse shooting at large apertures.
Thanks and yes I know; the very first time I encountered this phenomenom I could not figure out what was wrong with the camera or lens
artsupreme wrote:
Nice, so is that approximately an 11hr flight to Amsterdam and then a 9hr flight to Arusha? If so that's a bout an hour less flight time than what I did for LAX to Doha to Nairobi. Layover was only a couple hours in Doha.
As for gear, the only time I would have wanted the R3 in Africa was for a Cheetah kill when I was trying to track the Cheetah full speed at 75mph across the plain. But that was only for a total of 3 whole seconds of my 2.5+ week trip. There were four other vehicles waiting there and each had multiple photographers on them. None of the photographers got any worthy shots of the CIF per our chat with them and their guides. I'm not sure yet, but I think I actually got a couple keepers with the R5 but I won't know until I review the images at home. Unlike most photographers I do zero chipping and image review while on location. I know what I'm seeing through the VF when I'm shooting and that's good enough for me. I prefer to wait until I get home to review everything because I like having the bonus of reliving the experience all over again. Right after the Cheetah kill when everyone was bummed they missed the action shots I do remember taking a look at the LCD to see if I got anything from that split second sprint and I think I might have a couple, we'll see....meanwhile, all the photographers I was with are the instant gratification type who absolutely have to review everything they shot every single night. I'm just the opposite and I prefer not to look until days or in this case a couple weeks later, so I'm sure I have some surprises waiting for me.
Note - I was shooting almost exclusively at f/2.8 and the R5 was doing just fine in low light so I didn't feel I needed the extra ISO performance of the R3. I think you will like the R5 and will probably use it more than your R3 over there unless you get a lucky opportunity to track a 3 second Cheetah sprint.
If anyone here has a nice CIF at full speed I would love to see it as I understand the difficulty in getting one of these shots. It happens so fast and you have no idea which direction it's going to head. ...Show more →
I had similar experiences witnessing a couple of cheetah hunts earlier this month. It's over so fast the stars really have to align to get something half decent. The other challenge was that I found I couldn't rely on the animal eye AF on my R5, it struggled to lock onto the cat amongst the tall grass. The conditions were a lot to ask of the AF system, to be fair. And then, as you said, you do your best to position yourself but you never know for sure which way the chase is going to go. I managed one image, nothing special, of a chase that wound up successful for the cheetah.
evertdoorn wrote:
Thanks and yes I know; the very first time I encountered this phenomenom I could not figure out what was wrong with the camera or lens
It is a pretty cool effect when you film it
Hahaha...as i was laying in the dirt in Amboseli shooting elephants I was wondering WTF was wrong with my camera/lens because it wasn't focusing properly. It wasn't hot, it was fairly early in the AM, and so I wasn't even thinking about heat shimmer. But it turned out it was the problem...
It ruined several of my shots but I spot checked a few more yesterday and there's actually some artsy shots with focused heads and distorted legs that look pretty cool.
And yes I filmed a ton of it. I think most of the video I shot you can clearly see it. It looks like it was a blistering 120 degrees but it wasn't very hot at all.
Having shot both the R3 and R5 with the RF 400mm 2.8, I prefer the R3 for multiple reasons. However you can’t under estimate the pixel density/resolution you get from the R5… especially when you’re shooting at lower ISO.
I am heading to South Africa and Botswana next month for 4 weeks—as you know I don’t have Canon kit anymore but I’ll be testing the hell out of the Z9 and my Z 400mm 2.8S TC. Glad to hear you had a good time.
artsupreme wrote:
Chris, no doubt the R3 is an amazing camera I shoot it side by side with the R5 as well but only for super fast action. R3/500 will be an amazing combo. In fact if you spend a lot of time with Cheetahs you might get that opportunity to attempt capturing a cheetah in flight. As for leopard cubs, I haven't posted any photos yet so maybe you are confusing me with someone else who posted photos of the leopard cubs. The only leopard cub I saw was about 1yr old and he was almost the same size as his Mother, and that was in the Mara North Conservancy. ...Show more →
VKM2F wrote:
I had similar experiences witnessing a couple of cheetah hunts earlier this month. It's over so fast the stars really have to align to get something half decent. The other challenge was that I found I couldn't rely on the animal eye AF on my R5, it struggled to lock onto the cat amongst the tall grass. The conditions were a lot to ask of the AF system, to be fair. And then, as you said, you do your best to position yourself but you never know for sure which way the chase is going to go. I managed one image, nothing special, of a chase that wound up successful for the cheetah.
That's a pretty damn good shot considering everything else I've seen. And yes, I didn't use eye AF at all after I realized how poor it was performing, especially in the tall grass. So many good shots are ruined by just a blade or two of grass getting in the way, but I guess that's the challenge of staying low and shooting shallow DOF. Would have been much easier to shoot smaller apertures like the 100-500 in the tall grass.
The day I witnessed the cheetah kill was like a marathon workout and brain stress test. We were in the vehicle for 12hrs that day. I was on the floor positioning myself in a very uncomfortable position for what seems like an eternity. All while holding my 400 and making sure the R5 stayed awake without killing the battery. I was debating grabbing the 100-500 for easy holding, but I decided to stick with the 400 and muscle it out. It's very draining to keep scanning the horizon looking for a tiny spec in the distance of what you think might be the cheetah. And constantly scan the field to watch for any abrupt movements. Constantly aiming your camera and be ready for the quick action to move in any direction. It would have been much easier to sit in the seat and prop camera on the side like everyone else, but I wanted to stay low and so it was very draining. A set of knee pads would have been great to have. Luckily, I spotted the commotion in the distance with some impala and I guessed right as to where the cheetah would appear from behind the bush. I told everyone "here she comes" and then it sounded like war with a flurry of shutters blasting for the quick chase. Quite an adrenaline rush and glad we put in the time to see it happen.
robert_in_ca wrote:
Having shot both the R3 and R5 with the RF 400mm 2.8, I prefer the R3 for multiple reasons. However you can’t under estimate the pixel density/resolution you get from the R5… especially when you’re shooting at lower ISO.
I heading to South Africa and Botswana next month for 4 weeks—as you know I don’t have Canon kit anymore but I’ll be testing the hell out of the Z9 and my Z 400mm 2.8S TC. Glad to hear you had a good time.
4 weeks!?!? So jealous. I'm sure the Z9/400 TC combo will be amazing! Canon needs to follow suit.
Yes, the R3 would have yielded more keepers but I don't think I missed much with the R5 considering most of the movement I was shooting was fairly easy to track. R5 definiitely misses occasionally with the shallow DOF but it does a great job overall.
Well I am off to SA tomorrow. I’ll let you know how the Nikon does. Heading out with the Z9, Z 400mm 2.8TC, Z7ii, Z 70-200mm 2.8, Z x1.4TC
artsupreme wrote:
4 weeks!?!? So jealous. I'm sure the Z9/400 TC combo will be amazing! Canon needs to follow suit.
Yes, the R3 would have yielded more keepers but I don't think I missed much with the R5 considering most of the movement I was shooting was fairly easy to track. R5 definiitely misses occasionally with the shallow DOF but it does a great job overall.
robert_in_ca wrote:
Well I am off to SA tomorrow. I’ll let you know how the Nikon does. Heading out with the Z9, Z 400mm 2.8TC, Z7ii, Z 70-200mm 2.8, Z x1.4TC
Nice, that's the perfect setup in my opinion. Would be my number one pick if I went back. I sure wish Canon would catch up with the built in TC's. Have a great time.
So I made the jump and picked up my RF 400 2.8 yesterday and extenders. Had a CPS loaner and liked it so much, I'm now selling my EF 500. 400 suits my style more and having the flexibility if needed with the TC's I think I'm good. Sure wish it had a built-in extender but it is what it is. Wish I made this move before my Pantanal trip, but looking forward to using this on the trips I'm hosting in the Mara in feb.
So I made the jump and picked up my RF 400 2.8 yesterday and extenders. Had a CPS loaner and liked it so much, I'm now selling my EF 500. 400 suits my style more and having the flexibility if needed with the TC's I think I'm good. Sure wish it had a built-in extender but it is what it is. Wish I made this move before my Pantanal trip, but looking forward to using this on the trips I'm hosting in the Mara in feb.
This year on safari I used the 500/4 II much more with a 1.4x III than without, but the 100-500 does much of the "short" stuff. Is the RF 400/2.8 really any better than the EF IS II or IS III? Years ago I tried a (heavy) 400/2.8 IS II on FF and it was so often too short, so I went with the 200-400/4 TC for a while, but always gravitated back to 500mm. Maybe the style now with 45+ MP is to shoot wider?
It really depends on where you are I think. Often the 500 is just a bit too tight for me. I'd rather shoot a bit wider and then crop a bit (indeed, R5). Also, although I like close-ups I also like a bit of context in the images now and then. If I look at my Lightroom cats of trips, the 1.4 is used in maybe 15 or 20% of cases. So I did get the 2x extender which would get me to 800mm.
One thing to note is that I am not much of a birder.
I think the II is more than sharp enough (and the III too for sure), but the II is much heavier. This lens is very well hand holdable. I looked hard but could not find a second hand mk III for a decent price, so decided to go straight for the RF version.
I was in Namibia and Botswana late this past summer for 3 1/2 weeks. I had my r6/r5 and 100-500 as well as my rf600f4. I also took an ef 24-70ii for landscapes and people. I am used to shooting birds where you need as much reach as you can get, but on this trip we were able to get close enough that the r6 with 100-500 was used a great deal, even with big cats.
Just returned from 2 weeks in Botswana. Chobe, Delta and Kalahari. Amazing country, people, food and animal/ bird life.
In the end took. R3 / R5 with 600/4 and 100-500 and 24-105. I was so glad I had the 600 even getting close to the big cats being able to do close detail without the need to crop was great.
I think 70% on the 600 / 28% on the 100-500 and 2% with the 24.
Just returned from 2 weeks in Botswana. Chobe, Delta and Kalahari. Amazing country, people, food and animal/ bird life.
In the end took. R3 / R5 with 600/4 and 100-500 and 24-105. I was so glad I had the 600 even getting close to the big cats being able to do close detail without the need to crop was great.
I think 70% on the 600 / 28% on the 100-500 and 2% with the 24.
Great to hear you had a good time, I'm heading to Botswana next year. How did you find the 100-500 with regards to early morning/evening photography? How did you manage the smaller apertures? I love its flexibility but worry about low light scenarios.
Just returned from 2 weeks in Botswana. Chobe, Delta and Kalahari. Amazing country, people, food and animal/ bird life.
In the end took. R3 / R5 with 600/4 and 100-500 and 24-105. I was so glad I had the 600 even getting close to the big cats being able to do close detail without the need to crop was great.
I think 70% on the 600 / 28% on the 100-500 and 2% with the 24.
This thread has turned into a great resource for those going on their first Safari, thanks for your feedback. What I have learned since starting this thread and then going on my first Safari is a few key bits of information are needed to note for those looking for gear suggestions:
1. Are you going to National Parks or Private Conservancies? I saw this being asked quite a bit earlier in this thread before I went and IMO it's the most important question because ideal gear selections can differ greatly between the two experiences. For example, Mort2k said he is so glad he had his 600 to get close to the big cats without cropping in South Africa. That experience is the complete opposite of mine in East Africa, maybe because I was in the conservancies where were could drive right up to anything we wanted to. My 400 was often way too long for big cats when we parked very close to them. And when they walked toward our vehicle and rubbed against it or even pee'd on it, the 70-200 was even too long. I was originally planning on bringing a 600 but glad I didn't because it would have been too long for most everything I shot. I do not crop other than slight leveling. With my 400, I often had to shoot tight portrait style shots because the animals were too close and extending out of the frame. I believe this is the benefit of a prime as it forces you to really focus on framing and creativity. This goes for my experience with lions, cheetahs, and leopards and the rest of the big game.
2. What are you shooting, birds or the big five? This is obvious, if you want to shoot birds then 600mm + would be ideal, even in a conservancy. I shot a few birds that were very close to the vehicle but if all my attention was on birds or small critters then i would have brought my 600 instead of the 400
3. What region are you visiting? It sounds like you might need more focal length in South Africa due to having more bush/vegetation that prevents you from getting close to the animals? Someone who's been to both regions can confirm if this is correct. But I know Kenya and Tanzania are wide open in most places and you can drive anywhere off-road unless it's an NP. From what I've seen of SA it seems more like dirt roads through denser vegetation that limits your access. Maybe this is why Mort2k liked having his 600 in the South?
4. Do you crop often? I don't, but if this is your thing then you can obviously get away with shorter focal lengths
5. What is your aperture preference? If you like shooting large apertures, then bring a nice fast prime to compliment your slow 100-500 zoom. I could have probably done just as well with my 300 2.8 and 135/2 for the low light stuff considering the action was very close in the conservancies.
6. What time of the year? If it's hot and dry then heat shimmer can be a big problem even at shorter focal lengths. If wet, not much of an issue with long focal lengths other than the occasional down pour. I love the dry season look whereas others like the green wet look. This is definitely something to think about when planning your trip.
I might be missing something else, but figured I would point this out for anyone who's racking their brain on what gear to bring on their first Safari.
. Where did you find the leopard cubs? I really miss seeing them as it’s been quite a while. 
