Cduff406 wrote:
I keep thinking I want to take a small tripod with me. Seems like it would be handy for a lot of things, but I hate to give up the weight in my luggage. I'd like to do some Landscapes and maybe some astrophotography around camp, and I think it would be nice to set up on lunch breaks on drives. but not sure if it's worth the hassle. I do plan to use some private cars or some of the days I'm there, so it would be easy to set up if we parked on some good game. I'll ask the lodge is what they think when we finally settle on them but just curious if anybody had taken one....Show more →
I brought one for the same reasons but lugged it around for a few weeks and never used it once, so it was just extra weight in the bag that I wish I'd never brought. If you are hustling and getting up at 430am everyday and also coming home after sunset at night you probably won't be doing astrophotography. You can always use a bean bag or place it on the hood of the vehicle if you need to, but if I go back I would not take one. If anything, maybe one of those small Gorilla pods which would give you more utility to hang it or place it on a rock, etc.
Thanks, you pretty much hit all my concerns. I'll have to give it some thought for the time comes. It's likely not worth the hassle of dragging it along though.
I brought a travel tripod on my trip and regularly used it for sunset shots. I also woke up in the middle of the night one night and took an astro shot as well. I guess it all depends on your priorities. I wanted to come home with some good landscape shots so it was worth it to me.
kylebarendrick wrote:
I brought a travel tripod on my trip and regularly used it for sunset shots. I also woke up in the middle of the night one night and took an astro shot as well. I guess it all depends on your priorities. I wanted to come home with some good landscape shots so it was worth it to me.
Were you shooting very small apertures or doing time lapses possibly? Curious because I shot sunrise and sunset shots every day and I never had need for a tripod, but I don't shoot tiny apertures either. Another photographer I was there with donated his tripod halfway through the trip because he was over lugging it around from camp to camp.
Only thing I could see one being useful for with my shooting style might be Astro, but then again I'm pretty good at propping my cameras on things nowadays since flippy screens and mobile device control makes things a lot easier.
artsupreme wrote:
Were you shooting very small apertures or doing time lapses possibly? Curious because I shot sunrise and sunset shots every day and I never had need for a tripod, but I don't shoot tiny apertures either. Another photographer I was there with donated his tripod halfway through the trip because he was over lugging it around from camp to camp.
Only thing I could see one being useful for with my shooting style might be Astro, but then again I'm pretty good at propping my cameras on things nowadays since flippy screens and mobile device control makes things a lot easier....Show more →
Not really, just late into twilight picking up the deep reds that held in the sky. Could I have shot at a higher iso, handheld, or propped on something else? Of course. I'm glad I didn't have to. We all have different priorities.
Going to serengeti this july!
Currently owned A7C and a few short primes + sigma 28-70mm f2.8 which i do not like.
Thinking of getting a 2nd body for the tele range so my wife and I can make some good memories together!!
A used A7R III cost about the same as a new A6600 in my country. A7R III cropped mode is around 18MP which is plenty for my needs.
So i was thinking the follow options:
1. A7C + 28-70mm for animals near the jeep.
A7R III + 70-300mm for something further away and can use cropped mode for something further.
2. A7C + 28-70mm for animals near the jeep.
A7R III + Tamron 18-300mm (APSC) always in cropped mode for the ease of use.
I will bring along my 20mm f1.8 if there is a chance to get some selfies and landscape shots if we can dismount. Trying to avoid changing lenses when vehicle is on the move.
For option 2, i understand there are some overlaps but i want my wife to enjoy shooting as well and the f2.8 might come in handy during sunrise/sunset and maybe elephants portrait lol.
Am i crazy to use A7R III in cropped mode for the entire game drive? One camp prefers to fully maximise the 42mp while the other camp appreciate the flexibility of the E mount.
I know there are no right or wrong answers but just want to make the most right decisions.
Or should i just get a A6600 instead? Wont consider other A6xxx model because the battery and micro usb really lower quality of life (ikr).
Not really into huge artillery guns. Max i would go is sony 70-200 F4 (hate the white and heard that its mediocre) or if i am really pushing it, sigma 100-400mm.
Lolroy wrote:
Going to serengeti this july!
Currently owned A7C and a few short primes + sigma 28-70mm f2.8 which i do not like.
Thinking of getting a 2nd body for the tele range so my wife and I can make some good memories together!!
A used A7R III cost about the same as a new A6600 in my country. A7R III cropped mode is around 18MP which is plenty for my needs.
So i was thinking the follow options:
1. A7C + 28-70mm for animals near the jeep.
A7R III + 70-300mm for something further away and can use cropped mode for something further.
2. A7C + 28-70mm for animals near the jeep.
A7R III + Tamron 18-300mm (APSC) always in cropped mode for the ease of use.
I will bring along my 20mm f1.8 if there is a chance to get some selfies and landscape shots if we can dismount. Trying to avoid changing lenses when vehicle is on the move.
For option 2, i understand there are some overlaps but i want my wife to enjoy shooting as well and the f2.8 might come in handy during sunrise/sunset and maybe elephants portrait lol.
Am i crazy to use A7R III in cropped mode for the entire game drive? One camp prefers to fully maximise the 42mp while the other camp appreciate the flexibility of the E mount.
I know there are no right or wrong answers but just want to make the most right decisions.
Or should i just get a A6600 instead? Wont consider other A6xxx model because the battery and micro usb really lower quality of life (ikr).
Not really into huge artillery guns. Max i would go is sony 70-200 F4 (hate the white and heard that its mediocre) or if i am really pushing it, sigma 100-400mm.
IMHO,
I took a 100-500, a 70-200, and a 24-70 on my last two safaris. The 100-500 was used for 80% of the shots, 15% with the 70-200, and the 24-70 was used 5% of the time.
Rarely were the animals close to the jeep ( i.e. close enough for 24mm to 50mm).
I had two bodies and the 100-500 lived on one exclusively,
I think you are thinking too short with the 28-70, and too short with the 70-300 for long shots. And since cropped mode is 18mp just cropped out of the center, it's really not more reach. You just crop in post for the same sort of reach.
I was incredibly glad to have all shots at 45mps when I got home and began processing. In fact for the next trip I am adding a 600mm f/4 and leaving the 24-70 at home. For the odd scenic shot I am throwing a small 16mm prime that weighs next to nothing along as well.
Lunching lions were shot at 1000mm (100-500 w 2ex) and the jackel drinking was shot early morning withy the 70-200 f/2.8.
ps: The Serengeti is wide and flat. My shorter lens was used in the Okavango Delta where it was bushy and we could get closer. On the plains, you aren't going to be that close. ( well, one elephant herd got pretty close.)
Alan Kefauver wrote:
ps: The Serengeti is wide and flat. My shorter lens was used in the Okavango Delta where it was bushy and we could get closer. On the plains, you aren't going to be that close.
Did you keep the 2x TC on the 100-500 most of the time? I'm in the Masai Mara for a few days in September, and I'm not sure if I should go out with a 1.4x TC on my 200-600. I only have 24 megapixels to play with unless I buy/rent an A1, so not much room for cropping.
I just spent 5 weeks in South Africa. I am assuming you’ll be in the Kruger and in some game reserves.
I only took 2 camera bodies (Z9 and Z7ii) and two lenses (Z 400mm 2.8 TC, Z 70-200mm 2.8), and I was good to go. It’s nothing like Serengeti (I travel to TZ a fair bit) we’re I am using upwards of 600-800mm. For those rare close up or really wide shots I just used my iPhone (vs bringing a prime lens) which worked perfectly. Like yourself, prior experience told me not to bother with a UWA or a 24-70mm. If you’re set on bringing a prime, I would do either 35mm or 24mm.
Alan Kefauver wrote:
Quick question. Going to Kenya and SA for 2 weeks in September, Taking the RF 100-500 and extenders, and the RF 70-200 f/2.8. Due to weight issues I am leaving the 24-70 f/2.8 at home and want to get a prime for WA shots. Past experience says that I don't take a lot WA shots. I did do some, but not much, video at 24mm from a hide,
The question is 16mm, 24mm, or 28mm. I am counting on Canon releasing the 24 and 28 f/1.4 before I go. The 16mm is a STM non L, and the upcoming 24 and 28 should be USM L lenses.
It depends on the region and time of the year due to vegetation growth and water scarcity.
Also another key factor is if you can go off road or not. For example in TZ you can’t go off road in the national parks whereas in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area you can—except for the crater floor.
Lolroy wrote:
A lot of mixed information from what i have read. Some say the animals will be so close to the vehicle and some say even 600mm is barely cutting it.
berimbolo wrote:
Did you keep the 2x TC on the 100-500 most of the time? I'm in the Masai Mara for a few days in September, and I'm not sure if I should go out with a 1.4x TC on my 200-600. I only have 24 megapixels to play with unless I buy/rent an A1, so not much room for cropping.
Definitely not needed in the Mara if you are in a place where you can drive off road. 200-600 will be plenty, and if you go in September it can get warm and you will have heat shimmer at longer focal lengths unless it's first thing in the morning.
I had every weapon of choice with me, and all I needed was my 70-200 2.8 and 400 2.8 with the 400 2.8 being my number one choice over my 100-500 and 200-400 with 1.4x TC built in. I like primes and large apertures. At 400mm I had leopards, cheetahs, lions, etc all walking right into my frame to the point they became head shot portraits.
If you are primarily a birder then I'm sure you'll want more but to me the Mara was all about the cats. I shot a couple eagles in the trees and I was fine with the 400 and 560mm of my 200-400+TC.
Lolroy wrote:
A lot of mixed information from what i have read. Some say the animals will be so close to the vehicle and some say even 600mm is barely cutting it.
Guess i will only know once i am there!
Lolroy,
I felt like I was getting the same feedback for awhile (all over the place) but like Robert said it all depends on location, what you shoot, and time of year. This is why I followed up with a series of questions at the bottom of page 18 which you should take a look at. If you were planning on hitting the Mara in September I would suggest the 70-200 and 400mm or since you are with Sony a 200-600. That is for shooting cats and everything else where you can drive off road. But as you'll learn from Robert's post, if you can't drive off road wherever you are going in TZ then you might need more. Either way, during that time of year watch out for heat shimmer at longer focal lengths. What I do think is very consistent from everyone though, is that the short focal lengths (24-70) do not get used much at all. Because if the animals do walk up to the car, you will be shooting down on them and it's not the type of shot you are going there for. I would take a wide angle for some landscape shots of Acacia trees, etc. I would much rather have a 16-35 than a 24-70.
artsupreme wrote:
Definitely not needed in the Mara if you are in a place where you can drive off road. 200-600 will be plenty, and if you go in September it can get warm and you will have heat shimmer at longer focal lengths unless it's first thing in the morning.
I had every weapon of choice with me, and all I needed was my 70-200 2.8 and 400 2.8 with the 400 2.8 being my number one choice over my 100-500 and 200-400 with 1.4x TC built in. I like primes and large apertures. At 400mm I had leopards, cheetahs, lions, etc all walking right into my frame to the point they became head shot portraits.
If you are primarily a birder then I'm sure you'll want more but to me the Mara was all about the cats. I shot a couple eagles in the trees and I was fine with the 400 and 560mm of my 200-400+TC....Show more →
Thanks for the response!
I think I will be looking for the cats in the Mara. If I get the shots I want, I could do 1 game drive primarily for birds. I will likely take my 70-180 F2.8 along with the 200-600. I have considered renting a 400mm F2.8, but I don't want to go there with a lens Im not comfortable using.
I think I will be looking for the cats in the Mara. If I get the shots I want, I could do 1 game drive primarily for birds. I will likely take my 70-180 F2.8 along with the 200-600. I have considered renting a 400mm F2.8, but I don't want to go there with a lens Im not comfortable using.
You will be covered for everything and will be very happy with those two lenses in the Mara. Good luck, you will love it.
berimbolo wrote:
Did you keep the 2x TC on the 100-500 most of the time? I'm in the Masai Mara for a few days in September, and I'm not sure if I should go out with a 1.4x TC on my 200-600. I only have 24 megapixels to play with unless I buy/rent an A1, so not much room for cropping.
No, I primarily used the naked lens. I occasionally used the 2x. I used the 1.4x much more as it doesn't affect AF or sharpness like the 2x does.
