Camera and lens for safari

[BrentC]

No experience in photography is a huge concern, I hope you have a lot of time before the Safari to practice and practice and practice. Maybe a good bridge camera is your best bet.

What would you suggest?

I'm not too familiar with the specs on bridge cameras but I woulld check out the Nikon Coolpix's and Panasonic's.

 

[waday]

My G9 has a crop of x2 so my 100-300mm lens effectively gives me 600mm plenty for anyone....

Conversely, it also has a minimum of 200mm (equivalent), which wouldn't allow one to achieve any wide angle shots without switching lenses.

Why not Olympus om-d e-m5 mark ii with 40-150 pro (equivalent 80-300 in FX terms). Include maybe 1.4 TC.
It's under your budget and it is a great combo.

This is a good point. If going the Olympus/micro four thirds route, and you want to stick with a single lens, the Olympus 12-100 f/4 would be a great lens to have. From what I've heard, it has great image quality. While it won't go as far as the 150, it will provide a wide enough angle so that you won't be either changing lenses or trying to back up. (I guess I should clarify that I have Olympus and love it, especially for travel.)

But, like @BrentC said, you will need a lot of time to practice with any camera prior to leaving for your trip.

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

I think the 5600 would be more beginner friendly than the 7500 based on my experience with the 5100 and 7100. If you want a crash course in what the settings do, start with Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Great introduction to what shooting with a dslr is all about. Also highly recommend getting a camera specific guidebook to take along. I liked From Snapshots to Great Shots Nikon 5100 when I had a 5100 and Mastering the 7100 when I had that camera.

That being said, if this trip is right around the corner, Auto mode may be the way to go.

 

[Breaktheory]

I’m really not as concerned about budget as I am in not getting the highest quality level of shots I can take. If you think a coolpix or the like would lend itself to the newbie better than I would consider it but for roughly the same price you could get a D3400 with 2 lenses

 

[Breaktheory]

I think the 5600 would be more beginner friendly than the 7500 based on my experience with the 5100 and 7100. If you want a crash course in what the settings do, start with Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Great introduction to what shooting with a dslr is all about. Also highly recommend getting a camera specific guidebook to take along. I liked From Snapshots to Great Shots Nikon 5100 when I had a 5100 and Mastering the 7100 when I had that camera.

That being said, if this trip is right around the corner, Auto mode may be the way to go.

Thanks SquarePeg

We leave in 3 weeks so I do have a little time to practice at least the fundamentals- when you say “auto mode” are we talking a bridge camera or auto mode on a 5600?

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

My opinion: If size and weight are not issues, get the dslr even if you use it on Auto 99% of the time.

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

I think the 5600 would be more beginner friendly than the 7500 based on my experience with the 5100 and 7100. If you want a crash course in what the settings do, start with Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson. Great introduction to what shooting with a dslr is all about. Also highly recommend getting a camera specific guidebook to take along. I liked From Snapshots to Great Shots Nikon 5100 when I had a 5100 and Mastering the 7100 when I had that camera.

That being said, if this trip is right around the corner, Auto mode may be the way to go.

Thanks SquarePeg

We leave in 3 weeks so I do have a little time to practice at least the fundamentals- when you say “auto mode” are we talking a bridge camera or auto mode on a 5600?

Auto mode on the 5600.

 

[SquarePeg37 8]

Worth mentioning - I don’t know what the improvements were made when Nikon went from the 5500 to 5600, might be worth exploring getting the previous model (of whatever camera you choose) for a great price if the model to model upgrades were inconsequential.

 

[Gary A.]

Changing lenses is actually no big deal and can be done rather quickly. I think you’ll be better off with two lens, both of which will deliver a higher image quality photo as well as a wider aperture, than one big lens with lower image quality and slower speed. A significant advantage of a dSLR over a fixed lens camera, is the ability to easily and quickly change lenses. By not utilizing that option, you’re not only downgrading the camera’s capabilities but you are also paying a lot of money for an important feature which you will not be using.

 

[Jeff1549 49]

Conversely, it also has a minimum of 200mm (equivalent), which wouldn't allow one to achieve any wide angle shots without switching lenses.

Yes, this is true however the weight of this lens plus let's say my 14-140mm is about half as much as a DSLR Lens with a 600mm capability.

 

[Breaktheory]

Worth mentioning - I don’t know what the improvements were made when Nikon went from the 5500 to 5600, might be worth exploring getting the previous model (of whatever camera you choose) for a great price if the model to model upgrades were inconsequential.

I looked and from what I can tell, there’s the addition of Bluetooth on the 5600 but it seems to only be $50 extra

 

[Breaktheory]

Changing lenses is actually no big deal and can be done rather quickly. I think you’ll be better off with two lens, both of which will deliver a higher image quality photo as well as a wider aperture, than one big lens with lower image quality and slower speed. A significant advantage of a dSLR over a fixed lens camera, is the ability to easily and quickly change lenses. By not utilizing that option, you’re not only downgrading the camera’s capabilities but you are also paying a lot of money for an important feature which you will not be using.

That’s a good point I hadn’t considered - i realize however that I’m talking to a group of photographers significantly more seasoned than the average so I’m wondering when you’re talking about lower image quality are we talking about say a 95/100 vs a 100/100 or a 75 vs a 100 (if that makes sense)

 

[Gary A.]

Changing lenses is actually no big deal and can be done rather quickly. I think you’ll be better off with two lens, both of which will deliver a higher image quality photo as well as a wider aperture, than one big lens with lower image quality and slower speed. A significant advantage of a dSLR over a fixed lens camera, is the ability to easily and quickly change lenses. By not utilizing that option, you’re not only downgrading the camera’s capabilities but you are also paying a lot of money for an important feature which you will not be using.

That’s a good point I hadn’t considered - i realize however that I’m talking to a group of photographers significantly more seasoned than the average so I’m wondering when you’re talking about lower image quality are we talking about say a 95/100 vs a 100/100 or a 75 vs a 100 (if that makes sense)

As a general rule, zooms with less zoom (say ... 3:1) will deliver a better image quality (IQ) than a lens with greater zoom (say 10:1). In general, prime lenses are sharper than zoo lenses. IQ encompasses many elements, essentially all the visual elements contribute to image quality. In particular, most low ratio zooms will deliver an image which is sharper, less distortion and possibly better color. Remember that sensor size, pixel size, pixel number and sensor type will also affect image quality.

On Safari, many of the animals will be active during the low light times of dusk and dawn. Large/larger aperture lenses allow much more light to hit the sensor. The aperture is like an iris, the bigger the iris the more light can pass through. In dusk/dawn dim light, a large apertured lens will make photography possible/easier/higher-quality. Less expensive cameras have less sensitive auto-focus systems which will have trouble or won't focus at all in low situations especially when combined with lenses with smaller apertures.

Large aperture lenses are called 'Fast Lenses' smaller aperture lenses are called slow lenses. Fast lenses are considered to be more of a 'professional quality' lens. Typically, fast lenses are larger, heavier, better built and significantly more expensive than slow lenses.

Unfortunately, your suggested rating system is simple and subjective ... unfortunately photography and photo hardware is very complex, multi-facetted and often boils down to compromise and personal taste. The are photo web sites which rate various lenses in the laboratory (objective) and in the field (subjective). But you have to know what the numbers mean. 100mm-400mm Lens A may be rated higher than 100mm-400mm Lens B, but the difference between Len A and Lens B may not be significant to what you shoot, how you shoot and how the final image is viewed ... and ultimately not worth the additional cost of ... say ... 50% more. Conversely, a different photographer may find the differences significant for shooting in a different genre, shooting for a specific look, shooting for a large viewing size and find the extra expenditure worthwhile.

There is no single, correct answer for your question. There is no perfect camera/lens that does it all and can deliver an image satisfactory for all. But, (the big but), most modern digital, interchangeable lens cameras are capable of taking care of your needs. I think the lenses you choose will be more significant in capturing the images you desire than your selection of modern digital interchangeable camera from a major camera maker, (Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, et al).

In general, the more you want out of a single lens (telephoto, portrait and wide angle) the greater the compromise. The less the compromise, the more equipment you will need. A tourist at a theme park may have a dSLR with one lens. While a photojournalist on assignment will have at least two cameras with a bag full of lenses.

(I hope I didn't bring more confusion to this discussion.)

 

[jaomul]

You say 1500 is your budget. If it were me (you know what they say about opinions) I'd go into a camera shop and buy second hand two Nikon d5100/5200 or similar, a second hand 18-105mm and a second hand tamron or sigma 150-600mm. You should have change from 1500.

Changing lenses is not ideal on safari (or so I'm told, I'll hopefully have first hand experience in about 6 weeks) as the sand conditions if it's breezy cause issues

2 cameras the same with a long and short lens will cover most options. You can sell what you don't want to keep when you return and should not lose to much if you bought second hand in the first place

 

[Breaktheory]

Changing lenses is actually no big deal and can be done rather quickly. I think you’ll be better off with two lens, both of which will deliver a higher image quality photo as well as a wider aperture, than one big lens with lower image quality and slower speed. A significant advantage of a dSLR over a fixed lens camera, is the ability to easily and quickly change lenses. By not utilizing that option, you’re not only downgrading the camera’s capabilities but you are also paying a lot of money for an important feature which you will not be using.

That’s a good point I hadn’t considered - i realize however that I’m talking to a group of photographers significantly more seasoned than the average so I’m wondering when you’re talking about lower image quality are we talking about say a 95/100 vs a 100/100 or a 75 vs a 100 (if that makes sense)

As a general rule, zooms with less zoom (say ... 3:1) will deliver a better image quality (IQ) than a lens with greater zoom (say 10:1). In general, prime lenses are sharper than zoo lenses. IQ encompasses many elements, essentially all the visual elements contribute to image quality. In particular, most low ratio zooms will deliver an image which is sharper, less distortion and possibly better color. Remember that sensor size, pixel size, pixel number and sensor type will also affect image quality.

On Safari, many of the animals will be active during the low light times of dusk and dawn. Large/larger aperture lenses allow much more light to hit the sensor. The aperture is like an iris, the bigger the iris the more light can pass through. In dusk/dawn dim light, a large apertured lens will make photography possible/easier/higher-quality. Less expensive cameras have less sensitive auto-focus systems which will have trouble or won't focus at all in low situations especially when combined with lenses with smaller apertures.

Large aperture lenses are called 'Fast Lenses' smaller aperture lenses are called slow lenses. Fast lenses are considered to be more of a 'professional quality' lens. Typically, fast lenses are larger, heavier, better built and significantly more expensive than slow lenses.

Unfortunately, your suggested rating system is simple and subjective ... unfortunately photography and photo hardware is very complex, multi-facetted and often boils down to compromise and personal taste. The are photo web sites which rate various lenses in the laboratory (objective) and in the field (subjective). But you have to know what the numbers mean. 100mm-400mm Lens A may be rated higher than 100mm-400mm Lens B, but the difference between Len A and Lens B may not be significant to what you shoot, how you shoot and how the final image is viewed ... and ultimately not worth the additional cost of ... say ... 50% more. Conversely, a different photographer may find the differences significant for shooting in a different genre, shooting for a specific look, shooting for a large viewing size and find the extra expenditure worthwhile.

There is no single, correct answer for your question. There is no perfect camera/lens that does it all and can deliver an image satisfactory for all. But, (the big but), most modern digital, interchangeable lens cameras are capable of taking care of your needs. I think the lenses you choose will be more significant in capturing the images you desire than your selection of modern digital interchangeable camera from a major camera maker, (Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, et al).

In general, the more you want out of a single lens (telephoto, portrait and wide angle) the greater the compromise. The less the compromise, the more equipment you will need. A tourist at a theme park may have a dSLR with one lens. While a photojournalist on assignment will have at least two cameras with a bag full of lenses.

(I hope I didn't bring more confusion to this discussion.)

Thanks for the response - since my last post I’ve been seriously considering the sony RX10 IV bridge cam - it seems to get rave reviews as the sort of ultimate point and shoot - it also would take some of the learning curve issue out of jumping into DSLR photography immediately

I’ve heard the same about the most animal activity being during low light times - the sony has a 1” sensor but I wonder how this would perform in low light