discus

Sit at a dead waterhole long enough, and it gets tempting. Whatever happens to be in the car at the time, or the radio. I sometimes think that some of the music from the various "Jurassic Park" soundtracks fits in very well with driving into a park/game reserve =)

 

Generally though, I prefer the sounds of the wilderness itself.

 

HTH

Hi again,

 

You may find that as word of mouth spreads, you may be able to do more seminars - and at that stage, looking into some of the features I suggested will be valuable - obviously, unless you have serious cash to sink into a business, where you can just go out an buy 10 600mm f4 IS lenses and cameras to match (Chances! - would probably cost more than the lodge, land etc!) you'll have to take it slowly. One or two to share between the participants would be rather more feasible, and I believe a big potential plus point to your seminars (yes, R120,000 is a LOT to spend on one lens (that's roughly the going rate here at the moment)).

 

Also, if you offer digital, you will have to have computer facilities to match.

 

Obviously, you can grow over the years, starting with "bring all your own stuff", but we have processing facilites, light table and loupes (you might be able to make a little extra cash selling film, or else include it in the price). Later on, perhaps expand into digital with workstation PC's (one per client, ideally) and fairly high end printing facilities. The immediacy and cheapness of shooting a lot on digital makes it absolutely ideal for seminars/tutorials - you can either stay digital all the time, or hone some skills on digital and then use those skills to see why film still (for the moment!) beats digital. Don't forget to have some method of letting participants take back their pictures if they're using your digital gear (i.e. CD-R). Also, after you've run a couple of the courses, you'll see exactly what your clients would like - and get direct feedback from the people who really matter - clients!

 

Somewhat OT for photo.net - Food is a very important part of the experience - most places I've been have amazing food, so you'll need to get a fairly accomplished chef (if you or your wife are not accomplished cooks!). Of course, what you get depends on how much you're paying; you don't necessarily expect fresh west coast lobster, flown in that morning with caviar as a starter! (which some lodges - none I will ever be able to afford - will do for you at your request...).

 

Of course, the most important thing is the wildlife itself; whilst I am quite content in areas without the "big five", many of your potential clients won't be - but with trips as you suggest to the nearby parks, you'll be covered on that front.

 

Sounds like you're fine on the wildlife and photography knowledge, so those aspects are at least easy! You've also chosen an awesome part of the country to be based in. Check out the mullet run in St. Lucia sometime - it's unreal! Sharks and crocs literally jumping out the water and up the sand after fish. Unfortunately, I just missed it last time I was in the area at about the right time, but we met up with a guy filming it all for BBC wildlife. I now understand why people stump up the cash for 300mm f2.8 lenses (one was attached to his film camera)!

 

Yes, I do live in South Africa. (Grahamstown (nearish Addo N.P.)).

 

Once again, best of luck!

Hans - it sounds like an incredible idea.

 

I think what people would be looking for is basically what you've layed out below anyway. You might like to put in options for 1-2-1 instruction (obviously for more

money).

 

Other features that might be nice is "loaner" equipment; i.e. some big glass for people that don't have it, or don't want to travel with it; obviously, you'd probably charge a

rental fee for this, unless you wanted to throw it in as a bonus item within the course. Also, some people who are relatively inexperiences, and may not even own an

SLR might be interested in more basic courses, with the added bonus of a holiday in the bush - you should think about catering for that as well. Other funky gizmos that people dream about and would love to play with would be good too, i.e. very nice tripods and heads. It may be a marketing idea to have a "bring yourself, your clothes, your camera, and if you want to more photo gadgets - but we have tripods, big lenses etc. for you to use" - in this day of restrictive luggage allowances, people are hating travelling with their tripods and big glass.

 

You will obviously need onsite E6 processing, or else work digitally, if necessary lending DSLR bodies to your seminar clients.

 

Unfortunately I could never afford such a course myself, but I'm sure there are many who could afford it and would love to take part; it's all about advertising/marketing

in the end for a venture to be successful. Word of mouth can be very, very effective, so the happier you make your clients, the more clients you get!

 

Don't forget to include activities for non-photographer companions; i.e. spouses and children; that way the photographers can focus on what they want (excuse the pun)

i.e. photography, and their significant others/offspring can remain entertained and not bounce up and down in the vehicle or make lots of noise in the hide!

 

As you probably realise you'll have to cater extensively for totally non photographic parties/those that aren't interested in your seminars to stay in business - I don't think the market will be big enough for you to make a full time living out of solely photo seminars - and there is a lot of competition here! Everyone and their dog seems to own a game farm in South Africa, and there's a lot of choice - you'll need to think long and hard of ways to make sure you get and keep clients coming through.

 

Don't forget the south africans struggling along on Rands - they can't all afford the prices charged by most game lodges these days. There's a big market there, although you may only be interested in chasing the top end of the market (like so many others). You can have cheaper getaways during off seasons, special prices for those afflicted with Randitis (on production of a residence visa or ID book!).

 

Hope this helps, and good luck!

 

James.

I have an EOS 50e, 105mm sigma macro and 550EX flash.

 

Most of the fish photography I do is of recently dead fish from ichthyological collections, and here I can easily get away with one flash, held at about 45 degrees off axis to the front glass of the photo tank, pointing along the long axis of the fish from the head end. I also use natural light and long exposures sometimes - obviously, natural light isn't going to work too well with your situation! f16 is usually a good aperture to use, as someone noted earlier.

 

The main key in photographing live fish is an overwhelming abundance of patience. It can take seemingly forever for a fish to settle into the right pose in the right part of the tank. But walk past the tank a day later without camera, and the fish is behaving itself... The longer you sit there, the better your chances. A good photo makes it all worthwhile!

 

With one flash, your best bet is to use an off camera cord (in your case canon's off camera shoe cord II). You can either set it up on a tripod at ~45 degrees to the front of the tank, or you can set it up right next to the glass firing straight into the tank near the lens. Multiple flash setups give more even lighting (i.e. 2 from front, one to light background from above).

 

If you are photographing fish in a particularly large tank (i.e. public aquarium), an assistant is most useful to hold the flash against the glass of the tank and move it around as you do, so you have two hands to hold the camera. I've been assistant before in this, and also tried doing it myself (one hand camera, one hand flash - this gets VERY heavy and uncomfortable)! Next time I'll find someone to hold the flash!

 

When using a Nikon Coolpix 990 (digital), I found the piddling on camera flash was doing very little going through about 4" of glass and up to several feet of water, so I held a large underwater slave strobe next to the coolpix's flash, and when the flash went off, huge strobe fired. A bit of fiddling with the exposure compensation led to reasonable pictures.

 

Very clean water and glass are a must have. Backscatter is particularly annoying, and you won't believe what effective spherical mirrors airbubbles make!

 

HTH

 

James.

The only place I could find in South Africa that rents camera equipment is <A HREF="http://www.moviecamera.co.za/cameras.htm">http://www.moviecamera.co.za/cameras.htm</A>

<P>

I realise this may be a little late for your trip - hope it went well.

<P>

Also, have a look at photo.net's <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/africa/stapley/safrica">South Africa guide</A>.

<P>

With a little more searching, I also found <A HREF="http://www.studio-one.co.za/">studio one (Cape Town)</A>, who seem to rent a lot of different camera equipment.

<P>

Camera/lens rental in South Africa is not very big, outside of professional level movie and video cameras.

<P>

HTH!

Not strictly nature photography, but a friend of mine is a forensic entomologist. Which means that you have to be very careful when looking though his latest batch of photos - one minute it's landscapes, the next dead human bodies on the same roll... not at all pretty.

 

Anyway, yes, I think generally there is a reluctance to photograph and particularly display death - partly I suspect because it is difficult to make a "pretty" picture from dead things. I've seen some very powerful pictures of dead things - but I wouldn't say they were aesthetically pleasing, although interesting in a morbid kind of way, and representing issues of their own rather effectively.

 

About the only "death" you will see frequently captured on film is large african predators chomping down on some "poor defenceless" antelope, or sharing in the ensuing feast.

Doug-

 

IME flashes built into underwater cameras are a disaster. You will be far better off putting up with the added nightmare of external strobes on arms. My friend has a MM II EX and a TTL strobe; with the TTL mode on the MM II EX you can quite easily get an idea of when your shutter speed and more relevantly aperture are correct for the shot with the little green TTL exposure light on the camera - obviously you will need to correct if the subject is darker or lighter than midtone. Bracketing is also a wise move.

 

I think the II EX can take 50 speed film (i.e. velvia), but you'd have to look at the manual to confirm. AFAIK it supports DX coding.

For ultimate quality, you'd need to spend serious cash on medium format gear.

 

But for most purposes, you will find that a 35mm SLR will be fine for you. The key is to use fine grained slide film (ISO 100 or lower), and a very good lens.

 

The Canon camera you mention is very capable (I have one), and coupled with a sharp 50mm lens would enable you to take the kind of photos you want to (fish in hands of happy angler). You might also like to consider the "upgraded" version, the EOS 30/Elan 7.

 

Either the

50mm F1.4 http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?product_id=342

or the

50mm F1.8 http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?product_id=341

should do the job nicely for you.

 

The cheaper lens is highly regarded by many people, but I think the more expensive lens is more versatile - still for your purposes and cost cutting, the latter should be fine.

 

For landscapes, you will get away with the wide angle zooms typically sold with this camera, but they won't be quite calendar quality in terms of sharpness - you'd be better off with a prime wide angle lens.

 

Polariser are very useful to bring out the fish's colours, and they cut down some of the reflections on the water, and make the sky bluer and saturate the colours a bit by cutting down on the glare on foliage. This makes your pictures look better. Bonus!

 

It will take some time before you get photos that you think are about as good as the calendar ones - keep shooting, and look at the calendars you admire and see how they are shooting them (composition, angle, likely lenses etc.).

 

HTH.

Helene - in your case it may be easier to pick just one film.

 

Many people don't notice the difference between "consumer" (i.e. Sensia) and "pro" films (e.g. Provia, Velvia) anyway, so from that angle you should be fine picking just one film and sticking to it for your whole trip. I've found Sensia to be a pretty good all round film. Of course, as with all slide film you have to get the exposure right, or the slide will look terrible; this is one advantage of print film, in that they can correct to some degree your exposure mess ups when they make the print.

 

Still, I have rarely gotten exposures that are way out provided I spend a couple of seconds thinking about what the light is doing!

 

If you want natural colours, Sensia is pretty good - steer clear of Velvia; but you might like to try a roll one morning/evening in Namibia on the dunes - the results might blow you away.

 

It's worth having a couple of rolls of slightly faster film (perhaps 400) in case you need to do something in low(er) light, and you can't make do with a long exposure. Of course, you can always push a roll (I found sensia was fairly happy pushed to 400 - grain didn't seem much worse that on 400 rated sensia either! (only ever shot one roll of each of those BTW, so it might be a "fluke")).

 

As Shun says (and many others have said in similar threads in the past), it's often worth sticking to one film - especially if you know it well from shooting at home. So if you usually shoot with Sensia at home, stick to it, and if you usually shoot with elite chrome, stick to that.

 

More important is taking enough film. I usually find 1-2 rolls a day is about right for me if I'm touring around, but sometimes you will go through film a lot faster. I'd shoot more film, but that tends to do nasty things to my budget! Other people will shoot 10 or more rolls a day, particularly pro photographers.

 

If this is going to be a once off trip for you, blow your budget a bit on film, and maybe bracket a bit if you are unsure of the exposure.

 

HTH

 

P.s. don't forget a pen to make notes and label films - for example, if you're going to push a film, make absolutely sure you write it on the film canister (i.e. "1 stop push" or "2 stop push" and tell the lab to push that film appropriately). And if you swap films mid roll, write the number of exposures you have taken on that roll. Forgot to do that recently (no pen at the time, arghh) so I had to guess where I had left off, added a couple of frames just in case, and ended up wasting half a roll. Of course, with more than one body, you don't have this problem. (I sometimes end up swapping between velvia and sensia a couple of times a day - velvia for landscapes that I'm really taking seriously, and sensia for everything else). Oh, and wind can make waterfalls move...

As Shun says, there's no problem mixing brands at all - feel free to take a mix of whatever you want if you want to do that. Try a couple of rolls of both films - but if you know and love a particular film in Canadian conditions, stick to it as you'll probably know its little idiosynracies.

 

Part of the reason that people suggest testing films before you go is that not all films respond quite the same way to light as others- i.e. some 100 ISO films aren't *quite* 100 ISO - but this is a subjective thing - whatever looks best to your eyes is right. So it's important to know what exposure "corrections" you may need to make with that camera/lens combo.

 

To be honest, the main reason I use Sensia is because it's the most widely available slide film here, is fairly cheap, and I'm used to it now.

 

I don't generally use Velvia for wildlife work either (usually Sensia in fact) a) because I can't afford it (I can eat lunch for a week for the cost of a roll of Velvia) and b) because my long lens is too slow to do so in the sort of light you could really benefit from a bit of Velvia's punchy colours. In fact I've only used Velvia on wildlife once, and I have yet to get that roll developed.

 

Like Shun, I also use Velvia extensively for landscapes (if I have a roll of it). And it's brilliant for that.

 

Sensia is a pretty good all round film for me though.

 

I'm about to get 5 rolls of an Agfa slide film to play with (a friend of mine works for the importer so I got a discount) =) If I like it I'll probably switch over. Can't fault cheaper film if it's up to the same quality...!

 

That will keep me in film for a few months at the rate I'm shooting at the moment =(

 

Enjoy your trip!

 

HTH.

 

Incidentally, elephants are not middletoned subjects, they're a bit darker =)

Shun - in answer to the question you pose, 100 speed film is more than adequate with reasonably fast lenses during the day (pretty much any lens in fact!). As you suggest, faster film is however very useful in the evenings, very early mornings and possibly on night drives.

 

During the day I can get reasonable exposure times (1/60 or faster) on my f6.4 lens (500mm) with Velvia, which is ISO 50 (as most people know) - so during the day, there's plenty of light about for 100 speed film.

 

It's a different story from about 2-3 hours after sunrise and before sunset - which are better times to photograph (that nice, warm glow), but slower lenses may struggle to give you a decent shutter speed to avoid motion blur at these times with ISO 100 and 50 films - here a couple (and I mean a couple) of rolls of faster (400) might be a good idea. Even faster films might allow you to capture shots by "torchlight" from the big 500,000-1,000,000 candle power torches they use at night - I haven't experimented with this though, so I'm not too sure quite how fast your film would need to be for that. I generally put the camera away once it's dark.

 

I pushed a roll of sensia 100 to 400 for those "nice light" conditions (late evening and early morning) and the results were pretty good, so you can also give that a try, particularly if you're stuck without a faster film and need one. Just make sure to label that roll of film!!!

 

Film choice is rather subjective, and a lot of people like the more saturated films, to add a bit more "life" to the dusty, dry conditions - but then again, it's not realistic, but are you documenting things or doing "art"? It's a personal preference in the end!

 

When in Namibia, take precautions against sand entering your lens/camera (plastic bags with rubber bands around the lens with a hole in the end to let the lens look through), get up really early and hike up those dunes. A tripod is an absolute must. Cable releases are a good plan too. Velvia is probably a good choice there.

 

HTH

I live in South Africa, and have found sensia to be fine for my needs, but I haven't

actually tried elite chrome, so I can't really comment on which film is better. Film

choice is also a very subjective matter. I would definitely toss in a couple rolls of

Velvia into your bag for landscapes - also works very nicely for wildlife if you have a

fast enough lens.

 

Lighting is quite harsh during the day; a polarising and/or warming filter can help to

remedy this, but your best bet is to wait for evening light for landscapes here.

 

HTH

 

James.

I really wish they would introduce an "edit your comment" function...

 

Anyway, also look at:

 

http://www.sars.gov.za/ce/brochures/customs/brochure_customs_baggage.htm

 

http://www.sars.gov.za/ce/brochures/customs/brochure_customs_duty_free.htm

 

http://www.sars.gov.za/ce/brochures/customs/quick_reference_guide.htm

- this one also gives you some contact details. (Snailmail and telephone).

 

HTH.

 

J.

Customs:

You may bring in duty-free gifts and souvenirs to the total value of R1,250 plus 400 cigarettes, 50 cigars, 250 grams of tobacco, 2 litres of wine, 1 litre of other alcoholic beverages, 50ml of perfume, and 250ml of toilet water into South Africa without incurring duties. Thereafter duty is levied at 20%. You may not import or export more than R200 in South African banknotes. The alcohol and tobacco allowance applies only to people over 18.

 

You may be able to find more info from someone at the SARS (South African Revenue Service): http://www.sars.gov.za/

 

With $20-30,000 bucks worth of camera gear, it would probably be a very good idea to declare the fact that you are bringing this in - and taking it out of the country again. There is some sort of proceedure you'll have to go through, but it should be relatively painless, but it also means you have to check in at customs on your way out again so they know you've left with that equipment. You may have to leave a deposit (perhaps up to 20% of the value of the equipment, which is sometimes the case in other countries - don't know about SA), refundable on exit. If in doubt, try e-mailing someone. Also, don't forget to check it out of your home contry, just in case the jokers their decide to levy import duty on it all when you come home!

 

I don't have any experience with Namibia or Ethiopia; proceedures will be similar I'd imagine, but probably more chaotic (much more so in Ethiopia than Namibia!).

 

As for the negative "you're going to get shot in the head" whilst in South Africa advice which has been doled out above, chances are very much against it. Would you head down to the Bronx and start snapping away at people? South Central LA? How about Brixton or Manchester's Moss Side (I noticed you were British). I doubt it. Yet people will decide to go gallivanting into Soweto and expect to find everything peachy there. And guess what, chances are that you'll be fine if you do - especially if you go with a guide.

 

It's also very location specific. Whilst in JNB (Johannesburg), I'm paranoid, whilst many other parts of the coutry are very, very safe. Still, caution is always warranted, wherever you are!

 

Maybe read http://www.photo.net/africa/stapley/safrica and the reader's comments at the end.

 

HTH

 

James.

Just got your update from Photo.net - was thinking of e-mailing you and

asking how the trip went!

 

I trust you had a reasonable trip to SA? The weak rand is fantastic for

tourists, but it's killing those people (like me) that have rands and

need (well, want) funky gadgets which are imported! I always found SA

cheap when I came over here with UK pounds - now I've got rands, things

are more expensive - and prices are definitely increasing. I'd say

they've more or less doubled since '96. I don't think I could afford to

travel outside of SA now either.

 

It's only Touchstone and one other park in the world that has "black"

impalas - they originally came from touchstone; it's just a genetic

mutation of normal impalas (a melanistic form).

 

Sounds like you came across the same Rhino we did - they let you get

incredibly close. We saw 2 cheetah together, but at the time they had

lost (!) the lions - they couldn't locate them with the radio collars;

must have been in a radio deadspot or something. The collars somewhat

spoil the photos unfortunately, and the cheetah were not being very

photogenic at the time!

 

I found my Manfrotto fitted perfectly in the first row of seats - I

blagged the seat behind the driver on each trip; the feet even sunk

nicely into the corrugations on the floor and added a bit of stability.

I used center column for a bit of height - not ideal, but you get away

with it on a 170-500mm as it's pretty light; I found extending the legs

wasn't really that practical. It's amazing how much better the photos I

took on that trip are than ones where I know the lens wasn't well

supported (i.e. rested on a car windowsill on a jacket). I even made

myself a "beanbag" for the lens, but I didn't use it - the tripod was

easier. I guess owning a wimberley head would speed up swinging your

lens around.

 

In terms of sightings, that's often the best time of year to go, as

animals stay near waterholes, and the bush and grass is less dense and

animals are easier to see. When everything is green and lush, all you

see is green and lush and bits of animals!

 

I pushed a roll of 100 (sensia) to 400 and it came out well

(dusk/evening use).

 

I also used the cap trick for my camera. Just seemed a logical thing to

do. Zoom the lens to 170, and the cap covered the whole lens and most of

the camera too. I also turned the lens away from the direction of travel

to cut down on any dust getting on the "business end" of the lens.

 

Shame about your "new" camera!

I believe David Doubilet uses a similar system from time to time to capture certain specialised shots - I think he called it "pole cam" or something like that.

 

It could be useful, yes. Having been on board a ship and tried to capture video of dolphins off a small waterproofed CCD camera on the end of a long pole, I can tell you it's a real challenge! Would be really hard with a bulky SLR housing...

 

Yes, it would have useful applications, but the market would be extremely limited.

 

HTH

 

James.

Perhaps you are using that lens in different light? Like in shade, where the light will be naturally cooler (more bluish)? I get that quite a lot with my own 105mm macro (Sigma not Nikon). If you use flash then that won't be it.

Quit whining, down here in South Africa, the sun will be spoiling it, as it will be early morning here when the meteor shower happens. Blast. =(

 

J.

I can appreciate being on a tight budget - kind of where I'm at. Basically, you're going to have to save for quite a few years. I bought a second hand SLR when I was about 15. It broke irreperably about 2 weeks later, and that was that until I had saved enough money. That took me from then to 2 years ago before I could afford to buy myself another one (I'm 24 now). Make sure you don't make yourself so broke you can't afford film and development costs.

 

As for what lenses you'd find useful for bird and mammal photography, the cheapest new long lens you will find will be the 170-500mm from Sigma; I use this with my EOS 50e and it's not a bad lens if you accept its limitations (i.e. it's quite slow). Easy to get round if you are prepared to use a faster film. Michael Spinak uses one amongst several other lenses and he gets nice results with it (http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=67986).

 

You absolutely positively need a tripod. Buy the best one you can afford; the head you use is a matter of personal preference and budget. Whilst an Arca Swiss ballhead or Wimberley head might be the ideal thing, you're probably only going to be able to afford a 3 way head. I have a Manfrotto 055 NAT2 and 141RC head - it's a great tripod. Exactly what you get doesn't matter as long as it is steady enough for you. A quick test it to mount the camera and the longest lens you will use onto the tripod and flick the end of the lens/lens hood. There should be virtually no movement, and if there is, it should stop really fast. Cheap tripods will wobble a lot with long lenses, and that's really annoying if you're using slow film and long lenses - you will get a lot of blurry shots. Of course, the "solution" is to use faster film until you can afford a better tripod. Read the tripod guide on photo.net as well.

 

It's handy to have a nice backpack style camera bag to tramp through the woods etc. looking for subjects, especially if your parents aren't willing to drive you around the place, or sit for hours waiting around for the right pose and light - you can go off under your own steam (as long as it's in a safe area, of course!). You can also have a lot of fun in your backyard, and it's a good place to practice. You can use a regular backpack if you have to, but make sure the camera and lenses are padded a bit.

 

A cable release can come in handy.

 

Film, film, film! The more film you can run through your camera, the better. Take time out to look at your photos and decide what is and is not a good photo - and look at the work of others too. Then go out and get better photos next time. After a while you will see things that win major competitions and wonder what the Judge was thinking. Eventually, you might go "hey, I have photos better than that" and enter yourself. In this case, you should also think about using slide rather than print film. Slide film also lets you know better how good your exposure is - which is important.

 

Good luck!

 

J.

Your lenses should be OK for a beginner.

 

You will find yourself increasingly drawn towards sharper, faster lenses - for instance, I don't use my 28-80 f3.5-5.6 that came with my camera if I can use my F1.4 50mm, which is faster and a lot sharper (especially stopped down a bit) if I can use the 50mm lens instead.

 

Once you have recovered from the shock of laying out cash on your camera and lenses, you will soon find where your photography is going - for instance, you might get bitten by the "macro" bug and desire a macro lens, such as the 100m Canon macro, or the cheaper and almost as good Sigma 105mm f2.8. Or you may find yourself wanting to shoot larger nature, in which case you will need a longer lens (at least 300mm, probably longer) - and you will find yourself crying out for f-stops; I have a Sigma 170-500mm lens, and it can be frustratingly slow (used in lowish light and with 100 speed film).

Otherwise, you might lust after a wider lens.

 

Must have acessories in my experience are a tripod and cable release (if the rebel supports a cable release) for long time exposures which give cool results, and also any time you need the stability of a tripod for sharper images.

 

Cleaning equipment for your lenses is useful, and I find having lens hoods/UV filters on lenses is a good investment to protect your lenses.

 

A polarising filter is often useful in landscape photography (as are neutral density grads, but I don't find I use mine very often), particularly to intensify the blueness of the sky and bring out the clouds more noticeably.

 

Eventually, you will find the on camera flash limiting and will want an external flash, but these are quite pricey. A sync cable to go with the flash is a must have IMO.

 

What you are planning to buy now will serve you well until you decide what else you need, and your finances have recovered! Someone else's suggestions of buying a second hand Elan II/EOS 50e is a good one - this is the camera body I use and I find it very good.

 

Money spent on film is money well spent - the more you are able to photograph, the better. My initial goal of going through a roll a week quickly fell by the wayside with work commitments eating up my time, and also to some extent a lack of cash to pay for it! Take time to be critical of your own photographs.

If you arrive early you can bag a prime spot in the 'rover and set up your tripod; I managed to get the frontmost right hand seat on a recent trip to a private game lodge, where my tripod legs handily fitted into the grooves in the floor, and I had decent camera support. Leg room was optional...! I made a bean bag for myself, but as you mentioned, there weren't really any suitable places to attach/use it! Reasonable photos resulted!

 

I visited part of Sabi Sands a few years ago, and it was pretty good; in just one night we saw most of the predators (no cheetah, which we saw in Kruger, complete with a tense 20 minutes when a lioness could smell (but couldn't find) 2 cheetah cubs cowering under a bush). The traversing agreements between the different landowners mean you can get to see quite a large area; some have different policies on whether or not you can go off road, as it does degrade the land quite severely; I have heard talk that the more "gung-ho" operators may not have any game in a decade as their land will have been ruined by going off road.

 

The more you pay, the more likely you are to be granted every request... More exclusive places, especially in quiet times will often result in each group (family, couple) getting their own guide and 'rover.

 

If you don't see any cheetah, you can always "cheet" and visit De Wildt near Pretoria where you will see lots of the animals in very very big cages (plus wild dogs and a number of other goodies).

 

HTH

 

 

J.

Hi Dick,

 

It all depends what you are trying to show!

 

If you are simply doing a "conventional" slide show, just resize the images to 1024x768 (I have yet to come across a projector with higer resolution than that) and then just put them full screen across the "slides" in powerpoint or Corel Presentations. In Powerpoint, I find the easiest thing is to use the background function to set the picture as the slide background. There is little point having images bigger than 1024x768, and it just takes excess disk space. The pictures will be incorporated into Powerpoint (I haven't played with corel, but it should be similar). If you install the pack and go feature on powerpoint, you will have a standalone .exe file that you can play on any windows machine.

 

Complex animations/fades get quite irritating after a while, so watch out on overdoing that.

 

If you are doing something more complex like illustrating the possibilities, then you have to show them onscreen - i.e. run the image editing app full screen to illustrate your point - that way you can zoom in and show quality and so forth and also how you might manipulate the images. You should be able to hook a monitor up to the projector, or if using a laptop view the laptop screen and still output the video to the projector, and thus face your audience whilst showing them what you are doing.

 

HTH

 

James.

James -

 

I have the 170-500 (Canon version), and whilst it seemed an attractive lens in actual use it has proved somewhat disappointing. Even though f6.4 is quite a bit faster than f8, I still find it very slow for wildlife (100 speed films, nice light). If you are happy to use faster film, it shouldn't prove a handicap. You need good technique too - very solid tripod or beanbag etc. In good light (=horrible photos) the lens is adequately speedy.

 

You can't possibly hope to compare the resulting images to something taken with a monster canon/nikon lens costing an order of magnitude or so more.

 

The 500 is a little short for bird photography IME, and a 2x TC seems to really whack image quality and then you loose 2 stops of light on an already slow lens... Would be OK if you can work yourself into position really close though.

 

The zoom function comes in kind of handy when animals get too close to your car (it happens!).

 

The focusing tends to hunt quite a lot and I often resort to manual focus. It really likes focusing on bushes rather than animals too. =/

 

Still, it's all I can afford, so you make do, and you get pictures you otherwise wouldn't. And non-photographers (or people with compact cameras) give you funny looks when you pull it out of your bag. The same sort of look that you would give someone with a big white lens =)

 

HTH

Guy, I have the Sigma lens (although in Canon version), and use it a lot. You will have more working distance with your 80-200mm lens, and it will generally be more flexible in day to day use.

Still, you can't beat the sharpness of prime lenses.

 

Adding a 2xTC will lose you 2 stops of light. Not so much of an issue if you use flash, but if you don't bear it in mind.

 

I often add a 2xTC to my sigma for magnification of really tiny things. I guess it would improve your working distance a bit, but so far working distance hasn't been such an issue for me - patience solves many problems.

 

Quality won't be as good 3rd party, although with TC's it isn't so vital, what is important is the quality of what's in front of them.

 

If you can afford original equipment, it should be better. I think Nikon makes a range of TC's which are optimised for particular lenses.

 

HTH

Larry-

 

As a kid I was dragged all over North and South America by my Dad's expat position. I saw many fantastic things, particularly in South America. Only problem is I don't remember them as I was too young. I think as you say 10 is about the right sort of age for them to start appreciating (and remembering) the experiences they had.

 

Still, when I was young I had (and still do) a habit for exporing all the critters surrounding me and I think experiencing them at a young age made me the person I am today - even if I can't really remember how or why.

 

Oh, and I would agree with Han's assertion that compared to many places in Africa the Kruger Park is like a big zoo you drive around. Particularly when it's busy (school holidays especially). That doesn't necessarily detract from the wildlife, but it can. And if being really isolated is part of the essential experience for you, then skip it. Go somewhere like Etosha.

 

Many of my friends who grew up down here have fond memories of places deep in the bush where they went on holiday with the family, even when they were quite young. It's part of the culture down here, I guess. One of my friends even grew up in national parks in Zimbabwe, and whilst kids in many places might be skateboarding or riding bikes, he was out hunting various animals, helping dad with game capture, culls, walking around in the bush, riding around in Land Cruisers/Rovers and so on - a fantastic experience, I guess.

 

Whilst it is very worthwhile bearing the kid's health in mind, it is also worth bearing in mind the kid's personality. Are they going to get anything out of it, or like someone's earlier post, are they going to sit in the Land Rover and play their game boy?

 

The only way of balancing photography with a family vacation is either to do it when they are all asleep, or compromise your photography for the sake of the family holiday. You can't expect young kids to sit still in the car and not shake your 600mm lens whilst sitting at a waterhole for six hours...

 

James.