which gear for a Safari in Namibia and Botswana

<p>Dear all,<br>

<br />I plan to go to Namibia and Bostwana in August, and, as a long time Leica M shooter, I have no equipment adapted for Safari.<br>

I plan to buy a body + lenses, as Photography is an important part of my travels.<br />Could you tell me which focal lengths seem most adapted (Okavonga Delta, Chobe, Livingstone and Etosha/Damaraland), and what you would take there ?<br>

From what I read, a Nikon DX body (D7200 or D500 or Or Canon 7D II or...) + lenses (which ones ?) could fit the bill.<br>

Or a Fuji X ? or ?<br>

What about FX ? will 400mm equivalent be enough in those places ?<br>

<br /><br />I thank you in advance,<br /><br />kind regards<br /><br />Didier</p>

<p>Either way (Canon or Nikon) you go, your results will likely be similar....much of it is about personal preference/s. I'd take 2 cameras: DX for reach and good FX w/medium zoom lens....avoiding to change lenses in dusty environment....and simultaneously be ready for far and nearby action.</p>

<p>As to lenses, no idea on Canon side except for 200-400 + 1.4, tho on Nikon side 200-500 would be ideal. If you desire the uber quality then longer primes 400/500/600 would suffice. On closer range, 70-200 should work quite well. It wouldn't hurt to have a WA lens of your choice.</p>

<p>You can rent a body or a lens if you're not intending to keep it, tho some people may buy the items and then sell it (on return) under minimal loss. Enjoy yer trip.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>One more thing, which I forgot to mention, heat-emitting earth (atmospherics) may have an effect on long lenses and it would be desirable that you have experience with such....knowing the limits. Anyway, if you desire good results, or for the sake of efficiency, practicing with such lens/es would be a good idea.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>Nikon D500 with the Nikon 80-400 VR if just one body and lens. If you like to travel with two body/lens combos so you do not need to change a lens in adverse conditions and money is no object get a D5 with a 70-200 f2.8 for low light situations. Might not be bad idea to bring along the very inexpensive Nikon 28-70 AF-D f3.5- 4.5 when a short lens is needed for an up-close wildlife encounter like when that lion or rhino walks up close to your safari vehicle. Available used for about $100 and it is small and not heavy like the f2.8 version.<br>

<br /> Have done the above with D3, D700, D4 and D4s bodies and now would suggest the above two newer bodies.<br>

<br /> No experience with Canon but I also am a Fuji shooter. The Fuji X-T10 is a body to consider. Get the compact 27mm f2.8 and their 55-200 and you have a very competent basic outfit that is much less expensive and many, many pounds lighter. And the difference in bulk is unbelievable. However in my experience with all of these bodies the Fuji is not the equal of the Nikon in rapid action wildlife photography or low-light situations. especially when you are working hand-held. Fuji recently came out with a zoom in the $2,000 range that has more reach but I have not worked with that lens.</p>

<p>Hi Dieder, when I was in Botswana in the Delta at two camps last November I had two Nikon full frame DSLRs, the D800E and the other was the D 810. I had my Nikon 70-200mm f4 attached to one body and my Nikon 300mm f2.8 attached to the other body. I also had a Nikon 1.4x tc with me that I used once or twice with the 300mm f2.8. I had a 24-85mm zoom and a 20mm f2 with me too that I used from time to time. <br>

Most of the other participants on this photo safari photographed in a similar manner using two DSLR bodies. There were variations is the longest lens used: 500mm f4; 200-400mm f4; Canon 100-400mm II lens; Nikon 80-400mm lens. On the second body everybody had a 70-200mm or a 70-300mm. <br>

If I were to go again and would be renting or purchasing new equipment, here are the long lenses I would consider taking to Botswana assuming minimizing weight was a consideration: Nikon 200-500mm f5.6; Nikon 80-400mm; 200-400mm f4. I would pick one of these. And I would have a 70-200mm with me. And an all purpose zoom like a 24-85mm. <br>

You have to figure out the tradeoffs between lens speed, lenses with f2.8 apertures, vs size, weight and cost. The wider apertures are very useful in low light shooting situations found in early morning and late afternoon and early evening. <br>

If I was interested in birds, I would take a 500mm f4 or a 600mm f4. <br>

My Nikon camera bodies would likely be the new Nikon D500 DX body and a Nikon FX body or two Nikon FX bodies. <br>

I cannot comment on Namibia since iI have never been there. <br>

Check out what James says at this Eyes on Africa link: http://www.eyesonafrica.net/safari-photography.htm<br>

Make sure you think through everything needed as you will be likely taking over 1000 images per day. <br>

Many used their cell phones for videos and had a point and shoot with them for shots out of airplane windows and grab shots when traveling in vehicles. </p>

<p>Joe</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon 200-500mm f5.6; Nikon 80-400mm; 200-400mm f4. I would pick one of these. And I would have a 70-200mm with me. And an all purpose zoom like a 24-85mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am planning a trip to Botswana myself. I have been to Kenya and Tanzania before, in the late 1990's with film SLRs. Previously I said I would take the 200-400mm/f4 if I go to Africa again. Now with the 200-500mm/f5.6, I think that is the better choice. I prefer the 70-200mm/f2.8 over the 70-200mm/f4 for some low-light situations, but it is heavier.</p>

<p>If you are going to Victoria Falls, I would bring a wide angle for the landscape opportunities, something like a 16-35mm type. Also one macro lens maybe useful.</p>

<p>Thom Hogan is leading a trip to Botswana. You can take a look at his info here: http://www.bythom.com/BOTS2016S.pdf</p>

<p>This may not go over well, but I'd consider the camera I recently bought after I got tired of carrying around a DSLR with a 150-500 attached for wildlife - the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000. It has a 1" sensor, so has less issues with noise than the typical digicam, and has a range of 25-400 when shooting using only the optical zoom at a pic size of 20mb (you can get additional digital zoom, but picture quality drops a bit). If you shoot at 10mb pic size, then optical zoom range increases to 560mm, and at a size of 5mb, to 800mm. I've only had the camera a couple of weeks, but feel totally liberated when out to do some photography now, as the entire kit with some filters, a close-up diopter and extra batteries weights a whopping 3 lbs. I have some pics from it here if interested, some of which have been fairly heavily cropped and others of which were taken using the 'intelligent zoom' (which is digital). Still learning the camera, so I expect quality to increase as I become familiar with it:<br>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/107794064@N02/albums/72157665343977573</p>

<p>Enjoy the safari.</p>

 

<p>Bill raises a good option. I am not much of a wildlife shooter. Mostly what I see around our cabin and a bit on hikes and trips to the BWCA. So take this for what it's worth.</p>

<p>I got my wife a Nikon 1 J5 with 3 lenses; 10-30, 30-100, and 70-300. Considering the size, weight, and cost I am quite impressed. Raw files so far compare surprisingly well to a D800 with some nice lenses (70-200/f2.8, 135/f2.0 DC, and 80-400/f4.5-5.6). The J5 shots have a slight bit more noise and don't have the dynamic range of the D800 but otherwise are quite good. Definitely something to consider.</p>

<p>Just to give you something else to think about, I'd highly recommend Pentax gear. The new gear is all water and dust proof, and I have a lot of experience with this setup, it works wonders. A K3 or K3II (both cropped sensors)+ 150-450 f5.6 lens, maybe a 100mm f2.8 D macro and something wide will get you a fantastic package. You can pull out your gear in dust and rain and watch all the Canons and Nikons get stuffed back in their weather proof bags. Just a thought.</p>

<p>Just to give you an idea about image quality vs price, weight, and size. I'd planned to insert photos in this post but me and this forum don't seem to get along so another day perhaps. If you can find my portfolio on here you'll find 5 photos in the tests folder.</p>

<p>The green electrical box in these photos is 522' from where I am standing. All were shot at ISO 400, focal length = 300mm (or 35mm equivalent for Nikon 1). Images were cropped but no other processing. Overcast day so quite dim.</p>

<p>1) D5 / Sigma 150-600 sport / 10 lbs / $9,000. D800 / 80-400 / 5 lbs / $4,200. Nikon 1 / 70-300 / 1 lb / $1200<br /> 2) Original from J5 (scaled to 600 longest edge)<br /> 3) D800 1/400 @ f5.3<br /> 4) Nikon 1 J5 1/400 @ f5.0<br /> 5) D5 1/250 @ 5.6</p>

<p>You clearly get what you pay for but ... Considering size, weight, and cost the J5 does exceptionally well. All depends on what you're after and how much you're willing to spend (in $'s and sore back) to get there.</p>

<p>Dear all,<br>

thank you for all those valuable and precious insights !<br>

I yet have to decide what I am going to do, but your comments help to see what is needed. I think I'll go for DSLR(s) and my wife with something like the FZ-1000 or equivalent, as she likes taking photos but doesn't want a "huge/heavy/complicated" camera.</p>

<p>I do really hesitate to have 2 bodies (as I start from scratch, buying 2 even not knowing which brand, ... and also reducing weight), although can see how useful it can be... <br>

The canon <strong>7D-II solution with the 100-400 or nikon D500 with the 80-400 </strong>look appealing, plus a wide to complement.</p>

<p>BUT I had the opportunity to get a <strong>D500 + the new 300/4</strong> in my hands, and I must say the compact and relatively light combo is very, very appealing ! I'd need a 70-200 to complement, which means a second body... </p>

<p>thanks again for your help, still thinking about it...</p>

<p>any other comments appreciated...</p>

<p>Didier</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here's what I'm thinking... I'm going to Namibia in July. I've done a lot of traveling in my life and when my gear becomes too heavy after a while, it can easily ruin a perfectly great trip. I plan to do a lot of hiking and moving around on this trip and one thing I want is ease and flexibility. I'm in my 60's so that's a factor, even though I'm in very good shape and can handle these journeys.<br>

So... I'm leaving my Nikon D7100 and D750 at home in favor of my Fujifilm XT-1 (2 bodies) with several lenses since they're incredibly light. I'll also be able to take a much lighter weight tripod. I'll also take my X20 as a one-piece backup. And lots of water! I can easily live with a hardly noticeable loss of quality with this light gear so I won't have to hesitate carrying it around with me. I'll also concentrate on landscapes and color more than wildlife, so my Fuji gear will be perfectly suitable for my needs. I'm sure there will be times when I'd prefer my Nikons but I always regret something with my camera gear on long trips.</p>

<p>I just returned from a two-week safari in Botswana, visiting both the Okavango Delta and Chobe National Park. Previously I have been to Kenya and Tanzania before. What surprised me about the the Botswana trip is that there are a lot of bird photography opportunities, far more than what I had before in East Africa. Therefore, I would definitely bring something like a 500mm lens to go with an APS-C body. I used the Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6 AF-S VR lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Funny, it was my trip to Botswana and Namibia in 2013 that finally convinced me that DSLR's are no longer for me. I went from being a huge Nikon FX exponent to being a micro-four-thirds exponent. More about my conversion story <a href="http://www.photographers.travel/from-nikon-to-olympus/">here</a>. </p>

<p>Shun, love your parrot shot.</p>

<p>Dallas Dahms, the M4/3 system makes sense for safari in Africa. You sold your Nikon gear? You are brave. I am still sitting on the fence but, come to think of it, I have not used my Nikon for months now (except for macro photography). I have been testing the Panasonic 100-400 M43 lens. It is excellent but I think the Nikon 80-400 still tracks better - not sure if this is psychological. That's why I am waiting.</p>

<p>Tracking isn't really a requirement for most wildlife photo safaris unless you're a birder who loves BIF images. Most subjects you encounter will be static, or if they're moving they won't be moving so fast that tracking becomes an issue. The fastest animals we've encountered on safari since 2009 have been the African Wild Dogs on a hunt and nobody in our group was able to track them, even with top end DSLR's because we were in a vehicle that was battling to keep up off road! In that situation you hold on to everything and simply enjoy the experience.</p>

<p><br /> In Etosha the wildlife photo opportunities mostly happen at the watering holes, so again, static subjects. Personally I have gotten much better results with my Olympus E-M1 and a variety of lenses than I ever got with my Nikons and some top end glass. But that's me. Others will have the opposite experience. The thing is to make sure you know your gear inside out before going on an expensive safari and then discovering that you aren't getting along with it.</p>

<p><br /> The past two years we organised safaris on the Chobe River in Botswana. The first year I took along the older Olympus 50-200/2.8-3.5 and I was really happy with the results. Last year we did the same trip and I had the newer 40-150/2.8 with the 1.4TC and I wasn't that happy with the results. I think the newer lens is designed for near field subjects, not distant ones, so this year I'll be using the 50-200mm again. I will probably also have the new 300/4.0 PRO on evaluation, but where we're going (Sabi Sabi) it will probably be too much lens because we get really close to the animals - another reason why the 50-200 is such a great safari lens.</p>

<p><br /> The best thing about travelling with the m43 gear is obviously the lack of weight. It makes a HUGE difference to the trip when you aren't lugging around enormous bags of glass.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The best thing about travelling with the m43 gear is obviously the lack of weight. It makes a HUGE difference to the trip when you aren't lugging around enormous bags of glass.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Same thought here. Also, this consideration is a salient concern when the trip involves transfers on small planes where there is a limit on luggage weight.<br>

<br>

Anyhow, for heavy equipment, I strongly suggest using a backpack (instead of a roller bag) in order to avoid the possible hassle of being asked to check it in as luggage at some point. It happened to me on a transfer to Tanzania. Fortunately I was able to talk the airline manager out of it. The scare was not funny. </p>

<p>It is posible to sky-check your roller at some airports in Southern Africa if they stop you at the gate. It still means you don't have access to your bag during the flight, but you do bypass the baggage handlers which is where 100% of the problems with man-handling and theft occur. What they do is tag it on the apron when you pass through the gate, load it into the plane's hold from there and then when you land you can get your bag at the bottom of the stairs. I've seen this done at Nelspruit (Kruger National Park Airport) and Kasane. </p>

<p>Also, it's possible to pay extra for heavier luggage. We've just put together a safari for a couple of gentlemen who are flying directly to Sabi Sabi's airstrip from OR Tambo and then also to Madikwe from OR Tambo a week later. Throw enough Dollars at problems and they go away. :) </p>

<p>Understand. The reason I suggested a backpack is to avoid these unknowns - possible headaches - and "negotiations" where the end results are not certain. Hwvr, chances are nothing will happen anyway even if you use a roller bag. But for me? Not again. :-)</p>

<p>In my experience, at a number of airports, the airline ground crew would target those with large carry-on rollers and insist them to check them in, especially when the flight is full. I have seen that situation in the last few years at the Auckland Airport in New Zealand, Hong Kong Airport, etc. Back in year 2000, I had a roller with a 500mm/f4 and 300mm/f2.8 inside at the Amsterdam Airport, and a KLM personnel picked on me. We got into a heated argument.</p>

<p>Since a lot of airlines are now charging for (additional) checked luggage, my wife even thinks that is a way to get an extra checked luggage in, but of course not when you have expensive camera equipment inside.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, as long as you limit yourself to just one huge lens, such as a 500mm/f4 or even 600mm/f4, you should be ok. We recently flew economy class from California via London Heathrow to Cape Town, South Africa. From there we flew to Maun, Botswana for safari and returned from the Victoria Falls via Johannesburg and again London. We also had a small charter flight inside Botswana. We didn't run into any carry-on issue. I only had the Nikon 200-500mm/f5.6 zoom and 80-400mm zoom, but I could have easily brought a 500mm/f4 without any problem.</p>

<p>Nowadays, both Canon and Nikon have lighter super teles. The new Nikon 600mm/f4 is 3 pounds lighter than the previous version and now weights as much as the previous 500mm/f4. The new Nikon 500mm/f4 is lighter than the 200-400mm/f4 lens. There are also light 400mm/f4 DO lenses and 300mm/f4 PF lenses plus various 80-400 zooms. As long as you don't go overboard (as I did carrying 3 DSLR bodies), a healthy person should be able to deal with it.</p>