Camera kit for safari

[mike]

I've booked a week in Botswana in November, going with a group of friends who have all been before - it's my first one.  Everything I've read has said dust is a nightmare and not to be continually swapping lenses, and that you need a lot of reach. Because of the wedding stuff I've done, I've got a bag of dSLR kit but it is bloody heavy...   I've also got a micro 4/3 camera which is great for normal travel stuff but doesn't focus on moving things so well and the lenses aren't as good.

option 1 - 2 SLR bodies, one with a 24-70, one with a borrowed 150-600.  Could also take a wider zoom and a prime or two.
option 2 - micro 4/3 with a 100-300 (200-600 equivalent), and a standard kit zoom.  Might try and find another body to borrow for backup.

I'll definitely take a tripod and a beanbag car rest (or a monopod?)

Option 1 will take better pics but will weigh about 10x as much and will be much (much) bulkier!  Any thoughts?  Anything else I should plan for?

[Jaded]

Take all but only take DSLR with long lens and micro 4/3 with standard zoom on safari.

From what I've read about this (dreaming of winning lottery and going on Safari!) the two main factors are reach and lower light, as most animal activity is early or late.

[Kim]

Didn't we have a thread about this recently?

Found it.  Someone called mike asking about lenses...  https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=95982.0

[fuaran]

There's now a Panasonic 100-400mm lens, but its not cheap Might be some more of the 100-300 lenses available second hand anyway.

Depends on what Micro 4/3 body you have, could be worth getting a newer model. Should give faster focussing, and better low light performance.

[LEE]

Take an expensive pair of binoculars and don't bother with a huge camera rig (unless you go extremely high-end).

Sometimes it's better just to live these once-in-a-lifetime experiences in the moment.

Is there anything quite as bad as mediocre safari photos?  It's so specialised, and hard, to get anything that doesn't look like a beige rug in a sand-pit.

Just an opinion.


Edit.  I think the big opportunities for spectacular images are the night skies.
 

[Maverick]

I did this in 2013 and this was my experience https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=76667.msg1587425#msg1587425 In short my choice would be SLR with 40-70 and 150-600, beanbag essential, tripod optional unless you are stopping in lodges. Be prepared for the photography being much more difficult than you thought it would be  I got literally a dozen really good photos out of about 5,000 I took. Oh, and continuous mode/motor drive is your friend, especially when the action kicks off.
As Lee implied - don't forget to put the camera down and enjoy it.

[Kim]

Is there anything quite as bad as mediocre safari photos?  It's so specialised, and hard, to get anything that doesn't look like a beige rug in a sand-pit.

It's all about ruthless culling of the photos.  If you're lucky you'll get a couple that are really good, and they'll probably be of drinking elephants or snoozing lions or similar - something you can drive right up to and photograph at leisure in broad daylight.

Prey animals are hard to get close to, so you need a long lens.  Sneaky predators and endangered species will be hiding in the bush in bad light, which makes for disappointing photographs.  On that basis, there's a lot to be said for experiencing the moment.

(My personal counter-argument is that I can see generic-poo-colour camouflaged animals moving through generic-poo-colour undergrowth better in a high-contrast mono electronic viewfinder than I can with the naked eye.  But technology has moved on and CRT viewfinders are a thing of the past.)

[LEE]

My Dad is a Wildlife photographer (hobbyist), specifically Birds.

I know what it's cost him in gear, time and patience to get nice images  (I covet his Canon 300 f/2.8 II).

This is one of about 3 "Wildlife" photos I have ever taken
I'm just not into that side of the hobby.  To me it's about patience and technical equipment more than "art" and David Attenborough's crew have patience and technical equipment in abundance. 
I'm not sure I'd even take my DSLR on Safari. I'd want to watch it rather than document it, it's been documented far better than I can ever hope to achieve.



It was chained to a perch in the Hawk Conservancy in Hampshire. 
It saved me having to travel where mosquitos live and also saved me £3K on an appropriate lens for "Twitching".

When I want even more exotic animals I may be tempted to travel even further afield... to Marwell Zoo, near Winchester.. but that's 15 miles away... so maybe some time in the future.

[LEE]

PS.  If you are going to document it, Why not look into renting a lovely big "Prime"?

[mike]

I'm just not into that side of the hobby.  To me it's about patience and technical equipment more than "art" and David Attenborough's crew have patience and technical equipment in abundance. 
I'm not sure I'd even take my DSLR on Safari. I'd want to watch it rather than document it, it's been documented far better than I can ever hope to achieve.

well said, thankyou, and I'm also taking some good binoculars and really don't want to see the whole trip through my camera.

I never take bird or animal pics, but do a bit of landscapery and love taking pics of people, so perhaps I make sure i've got the right kit for that and hire / borrow a long lens for the beasts too...  And looking at the pics on my wall at the moment, all were taken with the micro 4/3, so perhaps that answers my question!!

[TimC]

Taken last month in Kruger National Park (Ulusaba) with a Sony DSC-HX60 compact camera. No extra kit or software, and obviously not technically very good! I'm sure those things do a world of good for your photography, but do remember you are actually there and you should be experiencing it, not just recording it. You can get pictures online without ever going near a plane...

[Jaded]

I've got some passable photos from The Kruger taken on an Olympus XA. This because a Scrote stole my OM kit the week before I went. It wasn't an extensive kit, but it would have given me more opportunity.

Like the lion that was asleep at the end of the drive one morning. Or the white rhino and its calf one evening.

The latter examples weren't in the Kruger. You get locked down in there.

[T42]

Chum of mine who does a lot of wildfowl photography and has had just about every major Nikon SLR from the F to the D4 is having a great time with a Nikon P900.  Obviously the D4 & C° will beat it hollow for low-light capabilities, but its reach is phenomenal.

OTOH I do rather agree with just watching rather than shooting.  I read a while back that you remember more of an experience if you don't take pictures: if you do, then afterwards you remember mostly the circumstances surrounding the picture but not so much else.  Looking back through my own archives I can agree with that.

[andyoxon]

...OTOH I do rather agree with just watching rather than shooting.  I read a while back that you remember more of an experience if you don't take pictures: if you do, then afterwards you remember mostly the circumstances surrounding the picture but not so much else.  Looking back through my own archives I can agree with that.

+1.

Yes, beware of seeing everything through a camera VF, but, I would take some good bright binos - perhaps 7x or 8x40 ish.  The southern African bird life can be spectacular - recommend 'Robert's Brids of South Africa', but you may not want to take it with.  Wish I'd had some good photo kit when I lived in Zim (pre digital), usually 'passing through' when in game reserves and taking 'grab shots'.   In any event generally I've developed a bit of a phobia about lugging too much kit around. 

Where in Botswana are you going?  Okavango?  I used to live in Bulawayo - not far from the Botswana border.  Depending on the year, sometimes the regions rains didn't materialise in November as 'expected'.   Dry season is good, we went to Hwange NP (nr. Vic Falls) in mid December after rains arrived once, and the signiifcant green shrubery, and more widespread availability of water, made it more tricky to see wildlife.