artsupreme
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.27 #18 · African safari talk...recommendations? | |
PaulMaewpa2 wrote:
Yes, renting is an excellent option although not available where I live - I’d have to buy and sell).
Just personally… because you asked (and realising this may be eye-rollingly too much thinking for some):
I don’t think it is really different from other wildlife photography overall but there is an awful lot to shoot (from giraffes to tiny birds, or at least to dwarf mongooses if you want to leave the birding out of it) a lot of different types of action going on and some animals that are going to come very close - or you to them - while others are going to be doing stuff you really want to capture quite a long distance away. There are also night drives and low light action to consider and different shooting situations to be prepared for (waiting an hour with lens pointed and ready, having two seconds to get a shot off after the vehicle stops, while it is still rocking, jumping out to quickly and very quietly snatch a shot from under or behind the vehicle, sitting down, sitting or lying on the floor, standing up, holding camera and lens down over the side of the vehicle*). I feel I want a 400/2.8 and a 600/4 but I definitely want 100-400 covered and those giraffes and elephants (and more) can be problematic at 100mm - as can some pretty amazing environmental shot opportunities. I also want mobility options - weightier lenses slow me down in and around the restricted space of a vehicle (I’ll leave walking to track animals out of it for now, but it’s something I do want to be ready to take advantage of when available). Of course what weight becomes restrictive of mobility varies very much by person, as with much wildlife photography.
For most wildlife photography it’s either as long or as fast as possible - and preferably both long and fast so those TCs can take you even longer. Or you’re focused on a particular species or small range of them. For safari it often feels like three wildlife trips in one to me, especially as I try to visit very different environments if I can.
There is also the weight issue for travel (usually solvable but not cheaply and sometimes not satisfactorily solvable at all without a private plane) and space in the vehicle if the space has to be shared. Vehicles vary too. I’ve been in some where the seat was so far off the floor and the space so narrow it took me 15-30 seconds after the vehicle stopped to get my second body and lens off the floor.
For me, 400/2.8, 100-400 and 24-70 is going to be great but that 400 is a “do I/ don’t I want a TC on it?” and then the question is why not a 600/4 (maybe cos it’s going to kill you when it is too long and the prime is your only fairly fast lens). And yes you can crop with the high MP sensors but an A7R5 or a Canon R5 aren’t going to track and blast like a stacked sensor A1, R3, Z9 or A9 - of which only the A1 and Z9 are giving you the megapixels you want. I guess both of those cameras bring no compromise closer but you probably don’t want to be hiring a new, unfamiliar body for a safari if that’s not what you have already.
(So, in your private vehicle, with your extra cabin baggage booked and your muscles rippling in your board shoulders you can take a trio of A1s or whatever your poison is, a 600/4, a 400/2.8, a 100-400/500, another body and a 24-70. I’ll accept there is little apparent compromise there).
Anyway, I suppose it depends on your definition of ‘compromise’ and what might actually be practical for each of us. I always try to think of gear in terms of best for me (now) rather than ‘the best’ - otherwise the GAS would kill me.
Disclaimer: I know people who take nothing more than a 100-400 and a phone and come back with wonderful shots that are still wonderful at whatever print or screen size they would feasibly want them). They don’t dwell on the one shot in 50 where the bokeh is more problematic than it should be, or that they are restrcited to Y meters, rather than Yx1.5, and they just accept it’s time for a sundowner at 6 and spotlight shooting is going to be more miss than hit, even for record shots. This is the other way of looking at ‘there will always be compromises on safari lenses’.
*You can also just stay put, enjoy the ride and trust your guide to get you in position for most things, but I can never quite manage to do that if it is my first visit to somewhere. I want it all!  ...Show more →
I agree the gear selection all depends on the individual and their shooting style. Most people will be happy with an R5 100-500 for 90% of their Safari. Others like me prefer large apertures so the 100-500 was my least used lens of the four I took.
Now that Canon is coming out with the 100-300 f/2.8, my ideal setup would a Canon R5 with bare 100-300 f/2.8, and a Nikon Z9 with 400 2.8 TC. This would cover 99% of what I shot on my Safari. Hopefully Canon introduces their 400, 500, & 600 with built in TC's.
If the Canon 100-300 f/2.8 turns out to be really good with a 2x, I would consider using this on a second R5 to go along with the R5 and bare 100-300 f/2.8.
I guess I had really good guides because I rarely had the need for 600mm. 400mm was the sweet spot for me and even often too long with cheetah, leopards, lions, and everything else all walking too close to my frame, so I had to drop the 400 and grab the 70-200. I had the 2x on my RF 400 and some Grevy's Zebra started play fighting on their hind legs. I had to jump out of the Safari vehicle and run toward a Rhino and her baby to get back far enough. It was still too close and I missed a bunch of shots with it being too long. I mostly used the RF 400 bare, but I don't shoot birds. There were a couple eagles in some trees and I think I shot one of them at 560, but birding is not my cup of tea.
|
- that’s why you took it.