Gear Question for Travel and Viewing Wildlife

Hi All,

My gear: a6500 with 18-135 and 70-300 lenses

I do lots of travel and found that changing lenses has lots of problems.

Past couple of trips: I rented a second a6500 and carried two bodies. Better than counting on changing lenses, but has its own issues.

I have great wildlife shots, and am quite fussy about image quality.

So: do I: -- Continue to rent a second a6500 body and use my two lenses or:

--Get a: Tamron 18-400 and use an adapter with my a6500, or:

--Get a Sony RX10-IV and use as my only camera

Super Zooms tend to suffer in image quality the wider the focal length range. A Tamron 18-400 would be a step in the wrong direction, unless avoiding lens changes trumps all other considerations.

On a recent trip to Ireland, my go-to lenses were a Sony 24-70/2.8 and a Sony 100-400/4.5-5.6, both GM lenses, and as sharp as any prime. I also carried a Sony/Zeiss 16-35/4 and a sprinkling of prime lenses, rarely used on this excursion. Since wildlife generally requires longer focal lengths, I suggest looking at the 100-400, keeping your 18-135 for general photography.

Taken on the Connemara Peninsula, IR, a full-sized JPEG if you click on the thumbnail below.

Sony A9 + Sony 100-400, 348 mm, 1/400@f/8, ISO 250

Thanks for your response, Ed. So you would carry the 2 bodies, given that with wildlife, you sometimes don't have the time to change lenses?

Joel

You're basically asking for opinions on two different questions. It's implied that you are happy with the performance of an A6500 and the two lenses that you already have - therefore

1. On the question of an A6500, and using one or two bodies: I think that is a no-brainer. Two bodies is the answer. Whilst you mention that taking two bodies has its own issues, it seems that those issues are not a paramount concern to you. Additionally, taking two bodies has a redundancy level inbuilt. Irrespective of the make and model of the gear that you have, both these points are relevant and will, in nearly all cases, provided the native lenses that you have are of a reasonable quality, be superior to buying an all-in-one zoom solution and using it with an adapter.

2. On the question of buying a Sony RX10-IV and using that as an only camera: The first step would be to assess if you would be happy on two key points. Firstly the ergonomics and functionality of the camera to achieve the shots that you want. Secondly if the Sony RX10-IV performs to an image quality the same or superior to the gear that you have: mentioned because you specifically mention that you are fussy with you images. If you get a 'yes' to both those questions, then you need to decide how valuable having a redundancy camera is to you. The extension in FL Reach of the Sony RX10-IV may be a matter for consideration, but you don't mention that 300mm was lacking on your previous trips. If you get a 'no' to either question, then seek another solution or use 1 above.

I have no advice on the second question, rather merely wanted to lay out the two matters, as I see them, logically.

WW

Thanks for your response, Ed. So you would carry the 2 bodies, given that with wildlife, you sometimes don't have the time to change lenses?

For landscapes and travel, I generally use one body with the most appropriate lens attached, and another lens (or more) in a large pocket or small shoulder bag. The 100-400 is a large lens, not easy to change and tuck away. In a few instances (in Ireland for example), I strapped on two bodies, the second body with a normal or wide zoom. If I'm shooting a concert or event, two bodies are normal practice, but not for walking about.

I assess the situation and decide what my objectives are, then choose the most appropriate lens for the task. For wildlife, that's generally the longest lens in my kit. For scenery or city use, I prefer to use a normal zoom (24-70 for FF, 16-35 for DX), but increasingly a set of small prime lenses. I can carry four prime lenses in a small pouch plus another on the camera, ranging from 18 mm to 135 mm, and change on the fly. Landscapes can wait ;)

The seagull was pure serendipity. I was using the 100-400 to capture photos of a dramatic, rocky coast line at the same location. That bird would probably not even flinch if you threw a rock at it (I was about 15' away). Serious wildlife photography requires more care, and as little motion as possible. A second body might be more of a liability than advantage. You can never have a lens long enough to replace concealment, patience and timing. Super-tele lenses are outside my pay grade, but I did acquire a Sony 200-600 zoom last week, mainly for video.

Pervue of Mr. Seagull

If you're not going to print you images beyond 20", then I think that you'll be extremely happy with the RX-10IV and its 1" sensor. I've seen many stunning bird and wildlife shots, taken by friends using the earlier version of that camera. This is the camera that I recommend to those that can afford it and want an entry into wildlife and bird photography.

If you might print large, or sell images, then I'd suggest sticking to your two-body formula. When cruising for wildlife, I carry an a9 with a 600/f4 attached and an a7RIII with the 100-400mm GM attached; however, if I'm not going to shoot birds or wildlife, I travel with my 24-105mm on an a7RIII and my 100-400mm and 12-24mm in a sling bag.

What's so hard about changing lenses? With wildlife, I often don't have time, but for travel and people, I find it easy to anticipate. If there's a "big sky" or architectural shot that requires the 12-24mm or a nature shot demanding the 100-400mm, there's almost never a big rush.

I sell on Getty and occasionally print large, so I'm using full-frame. Your lens line-up will be different for APS-C, of course.

If there's a "big sky" or architectural shot that requires the 12-24mm or a nature shot demanding the 100-400mm, there's almost never a big rush.

I don't know about that. Chicago seems intent to demolish or repurpose buildings long before they achieve heritage status.