Best Safari/Alaska Equipment?

[bruce_forman]

<p>hi. i'm fortunate this summer to travel to alaska in august and botswana in september and want to make sure i have the right equipment to capture the wildlife especially. i'd appreciate any recommendations on the camera body, lenses, monopod/tripod.<br>

camera: i'm biased towards the 7d because of price and crop factor-is there a compelling reason to buy the 5d mkii instead?<br>

lens: disposed to buy the 100-400mm L; does a 1.4x extender work well with this lens and/or worthwhile? also considering renting a 500mm f4 which would cost around $500 for 2 weeks as well. worth the expense?<br>

camera support: if in a open-air land rover or on a boat, would one be better off with a sturdy monopod or tripod (type?) to support a 100-400mm or 500 f4 lens given space constraints?<br>

thanks for your help.<br>

bruce</p>

<p> </p>

[julieroggow]

<p>Bruce,<br>

I have similar travel plans, Alaska in July and August then Kenya in Sepember. I would pass on the 500mm lens. Have a look at the Africa photos on my website. The South AFrica, Botswana, & Zimbabwe photos were taken with a 70-200mm lens and the Tanzania photos were taken with a 300mm f/2.8 lens. I NEVER needed more than 300mm in Africa. It's a perfect size! I had a teleconverter with me I could've used but found it was not necessary. <br>

My Alaska wildlife photos were taken with a 70-200mm lens but this time I'll bring my 300mm lens instead.<br>

For Botswana, depending on the tour company, you'll most likely be shooting out of the side of the safari vehicle. What I found that works great is using your tripod inside the safari vehicle. Just don't spread out the legs. It's more stable than a mono pod and you will want the support for your camera because you'll be shooting constantly. All of my Botswana, South Africa, & Zimbabwe photos were taken with a tripod from inside the vehicle. The Tanzania photos were taken out of the top of a safari vehicle using a bean bag support.<br>

Be sure to bring a dust cover for your camera body & lens. I like "Storm Jacket" brand. <br>

-Julie Roggow</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Alaska has a lot of ground to cover. Think back and forth across the State of Texas on Interstate 10, except Alaska has only four or five paved highways. If you are going to the area around Mt. McKinley, you can be prepared for wildlife and a view of the mountain if the weather clears. But without knowing how much of Alaska you plan on seeing....?</p>

<p> </p>

[mas-alaska]

<p>I live in Alaska and have shot on safari in Africa (Tanzania). The 100-400 is the way to go especially with a crop cam. Plus the 7d has lots of room to crop. I shoot a 5d2 and 1d2n, love the 5d2, but on safari you want the reach. There were a few times in Africa I would have liked more reach, but not many and not enough to justify the weight. I did not use a tripod in Africa or a monopod. Did not really miss it, shot from bean bag on the vehicle. Luggage restrictions can be tough on in country flights.<br>

For Alaska a small tripod would be nice for scenics. As mentioned above a monopod could be useful especially if you have a long day with lots of shooting. I don't use one often, but was glad to have one in Katmai, after several hours with the 100-400 on a 1d body.<br>

Here is a link to my Alaska photos taken with 1.6.1,3 and ff cams h<a href="http://www.mitchseaver.com/alaska">ttp://www.mitchseaver.com/alaska</a> clicking on photo info will show the cam and focal length.</p>

[bruce_forman]

<p>thanks for your responses. in alaska, i intend to visit kodiak island and do a day or two of fly-outs to the katmai coast. sounds like a 500mm f4 would be an extravagance. still tempted. :)</p>

[mas-alaska]

<p>Hi Bruce, All the bear shots in my Katmai gallery were shot with a 1d2n and the 100-400. A couple of bears wandered in to about 20'. That does not always happen though. I also shot quite a bit at less than 400 to bring in the environment. You would have more reach with a 7d. Still I can think of worse ways to spend money than on a 500. If you have a questioning spouse you can site me as saying it is an absolute necessity! Have a great time!<br>

<a href="http://www.mitchseaver.com/katmai">http://www.mitchseaver.com/katmai</a></p>

[richard_crowe4]

<p>I would definitely not travel with one camera...<br>

First: If it goes down; your photo plans are wrecked for the duration of the trip. I fell on a slippery Alaskan slope and creamed my 40D however, the 30D I had as a second camera really saved the day.<br>

Second: With a pair of cameras, you don't need to switch lenses in the field as often. You can usually predict pretty closely which two lenses will provide the best coverage. You will not miss as many shots while switching lenes and your sensor will keep much cleaner. Camera #2 doesn't need to be as current a model as camera #1.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>I was in Tanzania March 2010 with two Nikon D 300's (sensor crop factor 1.5x). One had a 70-200mm; the other had my 500mm f 4.0. About 50% of the time I had my 1.4x tc on the 500mm. I was in the Serengeti, the N Crater and Tarengerie N Park. I still could have used more focal length for leopard in tree shots. Joe Smith</p>

 

[jyoungman]

<p>Most important, you are going to need a camera support. A bean bag (take a look at my other posts on safari photography for suggestions on specifics, though please don't look at my photos :-).</p>

<p>There are always going to be dots on the horizon that are small in the frame. But there's going to be haze between you and them too. A great big long lens is trickier to handle in the vehicle and you may be swapping sides (animals appear on both sides, usually - it may also be worth leaving a beanbag on each window). Don't rely totally on using a beanbag all the time. For example, if you are near an Elephant or a Rhino, the driver will not turn the engine off, so any support based on the vehicle itself will add rather than prevent camera shake. You can't get out of the vehicle either (at least generally; there are some game parks where this is safe for example Thula Thula in SA).</p>

<p>If you'll be travelling in a safari truck rather than a 4x4, there won't be windows, there will be a rail in front of you; I've never done this so I'm not sure about how best to use that kind of rail for support. If you're confined to the roads and using a rented vehicle, get a high vehicle since there is often long grass. Take some time to understand and plan/prepare for the environment you're going to be in. IIRC, in Botswana, the vehicles are not restricted to the roads only (as would be the case in South Africa). Hence you will be able to get closer to certain types of animals, though the environment will probably be much dustier.</p>

<p>The mistake I often made was using a long zoom (the Sigma 120-400 OS) too close to wide-open and with low shutter speeds. I was then using a body (a D70s) that wasn't great at high ISO, but the reality then was that keeping down the noise by using low ISO values just meant I ended up with blurred shots. If I were using the lens again, I'd try to stick much closer to f/8 and above around 1/300. My current camera is full-frame, but if I were going on a safari trip again, I'd just buy or rent a body with a crop sensor. Any modern Nikon body would be better at high ISO than my now-defunct D70s.</p>

 

[steve_in_l.a.]

<p>I've been shooting wildlife since the 90s with a 500 mm lens. I can't imagine why someone would suggest you DON'T need the longest lens possible if wildlife is your goal. Search the threads, you'll find dozens of entries here and elsewhere around the web expressing the view of Joseph Smith, above. More length is ALWAYS useful with wildlife, I don't care how close or tame it is, assuming you are serious enough to learn to use good technique. They are heavy and they aren't magic, you don't just point and shoot and get instant great wildlife images. Wildlife shooting is challenging, so if you're casual, go with the DX zoom, but if you're serious, don't hesitate to rent the long lens. Unless you don't have a solid enough tripod.</p>

[akphotograph]

<p>I live in Alaska and keep my 100-400mm lens on my 5DM2 body at all times, I love that lens. I have the 1.4x converter but have not put it on in a long time. Most all of my eagle shots were taken with this lens:<br>

http://akphotograph.zenfolio.com/eagles/h38920c23#h38920c23<br>

I drive around with it next to me in my truck...never know when a moose and calfs will step out:<br>

http://akphotograph.zenfolio.com/p583444847/h37500dd8#h37500dd8</p>

<p> </p>

[scott_norville]

<p>Whatever you use, practice with it first at home. Ride in the backseat and take pictures around town and out in the country, local safari park if you have one, and study your results and try again. A trip like that is an expensive way to learn basic lens handling.<br>

If you can, take a 500 to use in the daytime, twilight means using a faster lens and/or tripod.</p>

[robin_brook]

<p>I did Alaska a couple of years ago, and will be doing a Safari this Sept.<br /> <br /> The right equipment is only part of it. Homework, patience and luck are the rest.<br /> <br /> For years I only had a Rebel with a 100-400L and was able to get some pretty good shots. Then I upgraded to the 5D when it came out, money well spent! The difference in low light, situtations, alone was worth it. Want to upgrade again, but just can't justify it in the budget. <br /> <br /> I've been doing a lot of homework for my Africa trip and communicating with several local photographers down there. Most agree the 100-400L without the extender will do nicely.<br /> I've seen some great photos from these guys, only using 100-400L.<br /> <br /> Sure the 500mm would offer some advantages, but it also has some draw backs. First off is the cost, however don't forget about size and weight.<br /> <br /> This is one of the things that separates the hobbyist from the pro. The pro often is making a living (or at least trying) from their shots, so they are more willing to lug a bunch more gear. Also their gear is a tax write off. The hobbyist does it for the enjoyment, spending a bunch of the budget and lugging a lot of gear, just for that extra edge doesn't always make sense.<br /> That extra $500, to rent a lens, might be better spent on staying an extra day or two.<br /> <br /> As to the monopod or tripod, I only have one phrase..."#$%^&* airline weight limits". I'm not taking either to Africa, because of the domestic air travel weight limits. It's going to be a bean bag for me. However for your AK trip, if it looks like you are going to be overweight, just mail it, to your hotel before you leave.<br /> <br /> Bottom line, is do want are you comfortable with. If spending the extra money and carring around more bulk and weight is worth it go for it. However, if not go with the 100-400, and either your 7D or the 5D.</p>