Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Beginner photographer, which one to get?

Hmmm....i would go with the Canon, but the problem I can see is that for safari you would want a fast lens such as the EF 300mm f/2.8L, plus a Kenko teleconverter. But since this lens will set you back some big bucks, how about the 270-200mm f/4L IS? The 70-200 f/4 without IS is still good, but it does its best with enough daylight.

Anyway, the 300 f/2.8 is just such a great lens, but I can only dream about it :) For now my 200mm f/2.8L USM II (black with a red ring) is one of my favorite. Relatively cheap, fast-focusing, and silent.
 
Last edited:
After reading the posts I think I'd rather get a a6000 than a DSLR, looks like it's a bargain for $800 with kit lens. Does everything as well as an entry level DSLR, and even better in some regards from what I've read.
 
jinyoungkim7 said:
Hey guys!
I've never touched a DSLR before but I've decided to get into photography because I love taking pictures, albeit it has been on my iphone. I've decided to take this step because I travel a lot and with my Kenyan safari coming up I don't want to miss out on lifelong pictures.
Click to expand...

If you can, rent before you go and for the trip. Make sure your insurance or the rental company's insurance covers international travel. Look for a local camera club or something where you can try other people's gear briefly to see if you're willing to cart a lot of stuff around.

Good wildlife photography takes two things: Length and Light. Forget that "effective" length stuff for crop bodies, they don't account for (a) enlargement and (b) sensor density and sensitivity. If you don't plan on printing large, then you can get away with a smaller sensor, but I'd not go smaller than APS-C personally because I like large prints. Long lenses and high-sensitivity mean more images during dawn and dusk when wildlife is most active.

In Nikon-land or Canon-land, I'd go with a 200-400mm f/4 with a full-frame or APS-C body that allows good high-ISO shooting. For Nikon, probably a D800 or D600. For Canon a 1Dx. Rent a decent wide-angle for landscapes too, but bring bags so you're not getting dust in the camera when you change lenses, and don't change often to keep the sensor clean.

Rent before to get familiar with the gear. Knowing what conditions you can shoot in light-wise is key. A good monopod will help, but both lenses have stabilization. If you have a local zoo that opens early and closes late, that's a bonus for practicing.

Paul
 
compuwar said:
If you can, rent before you go and for the trip. Make sure your insurance or the rental company's insurance covers international travel. Look for a local camera club or something where you can try other people's gear briefly to see if you're willing to cart a lot of stuff around.

Good wildlife photography takes two things: Length and Light. Forget that "effective" length stuff for crop bodies, they don't account for (a) enlargement and (b) sensor density and sensitivity. If you don't plan on printing large, then you can get away with a smaller sensor, but I'd not go smaller than APS-C personally because I like large prints. Long lenses and high-sensitivity mean more images during dawn and dusk when wildlife is most active.

In Nikon-land or Canon-land, I'd go with a 200-400mm f/4 with a full-frame or APS-C body that allows good high-ISO shooting. For Nikon, probably a D800 or D600. For Canon a 1Dx. Rent a decent wide-angle for landscapes too, but bring bags so you're not getting dust in the camera when you change lenses, and don't change often to keep the sensor clean.

Rent before to get familiar with the gear. Knowing what conditions you can shoot in light-wise is key. A good monopod will help, but both lenses have stabilization. If you have a local zoo that opens early and closes late, that's a bonus for practicing.

Paul
Click to expand...

a beginner should totally buy a Canon 1DX.......LOLOLOLOL
 
My goodness! The OP is in a budget, and there is nothing wrong with APS-C sensors such as the Canon 7D or 70D, nor the Nikon counterparts. The main problem he will have is lens selection, since the cheap kit lenses aren't the best at dusk and down. It means that he will have two choices relating to lenses:

a. Take some cheap ones, and hope for the best
b. Spend some big money and buy or rent some good Canon or Nikon lenses

If he decides to buy a FF body (on a budget), then the answer is simple:

a. Canon 6D, or Nikon D610.
b. Either longer good quality zooms, or similar lenses as above, or lenses with wider apertures.
-----------

The best solution for the OP is to go with a super-zoom camera, or one of the ASP-C cameras as mentioned above, and to rent or buy a couple of good lenses.

Some good advise:
http://digital-photography-school.com/digital-slr-vs-digital-super-zoom-cameras-on-safari

http://digital-photography-school.com/10-tips-to-photograph-an-african-photographic-safari

http://johnxsafaris.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/how-to-choose-a-camera-for-your-safari-memories/
 
Last edited:
OP, you opened a huge can of worms :)

The problem is that there are different niches in photography. Some are relatively cheap. Some require *very* expensive (and often cumbersome) gear to photograph well.

One of these niches is sports photography, another is wildlife photography. Both of these tend to be the most expensive gear-wise. It isn't like professional photographers like to spend money or like lugging around bulky and heavy gear. It's because that is what is required to capture "good" photos of those subjects ("good" is obviously subjective).

Take all of the comments in this thread with a grain of salt. Compuwar's idea of renting gear for the trip is quite valid, assuming you have time to learn how to use it prior to the trip. If you are really a beginner, this may not be practical.

During the day, a consumer zoom may be good enough. If you are lucky there may be animals that are comfortable enough in the presence of humans that you can get relative closeups using the long end of the zoom range on a consumer lens. With almost any camera/lens you will be able to capture the sweeping nature of the scenery you will experience on the trip.

Go into the trip with appropriate expectations. This may be such a unique experience for you that *any* photos you take will be priceless. On the other hand, if you are going into it expecting to capture a lion taking down a kill filling the frame of your photo using a $700 camera/lens, that isn't likely to happen :).

In 2008 I was in Hawaii and while on a whale watch cruise took the following shots. Somewhat similar to a safari. I had a Nikon D300 and 18-200 lens. Took these photos of whales. Notice that these were all taken with a "crop" sensor camera (which I think applies to the camera/lens choices you are considering). In full frame (film) terms these were all shot at 300mm. See how there really isn't enough "zoom" in the last photo to make the subject "big" (more accurately the lens' focal length isn't long enough)? Also of note, these were shot during the day in strong light. This lens isn't "fast" enough to be able to capture these moving subjects at dawn/dusk. Both of these (need for longer reach, more "zoom" in common parlance, and need to shoot in low light) are reasons people spend crazy amounts of money on gear to shoot wildlife--it isn't just because they can (being rich professional photographers??), it's because they have to. There is no other option.

Again, just keep your expectations in perspective. I think you will have a wonderful and photographically fulfilling trip with whatever gear you end up bringing :)

12888334515_f78c938340_c.jpg

Really close to boat at full zoom, 200mm.

12891115054_e55b10f709_c.jpg

Fairly close to boat at full zoom, 200mm.

12888435503_9b3b41bba2_c.jpg

Still relatively close, maybe 100-200 yards away (best guess from memory). Full zoom at 200mm. Was a calf and not an adult whale, but even with a relative telephoto lens the subject starts to get pretty small.
 
Last edited:
KimJonNumberUn said:
a beginner should totally buy a Canon 1DX.......LOLOLOLOL
Click to expand...

No, I said RENT- for good pre/post-dawn and dusk wildlife shots, light is key.

The majority of wildlife is the most active in low light. Those animals that aren't nocturnal are going to be up and about when there is little light and resting when the bright light is out. A lens that's f/6.3 isn't going to offer many shooting opportunities in those conditions. The only time I've found shooting slower lenses to work at all is in preserves and parks where the fauna is so used to people that they're not spooked by close approach and aren't a big danger at close distances.

There are two ways to get light in open natural settings- fast lenses and high-ISO sensors. The 1Dx has relatively good high-ISO performance- the Nikons are better, but I wanted to also offer a non-Nikon alternative should the OP decide to get a consumer-grade DSLR and wider-angle lens.

It shouldn't take more than a day or two to learn to shoot either 200-400 off a monopod in aperture priority mode on any of those bodies. It'll produce much, much better results than the OP spending $800-1200 on a consumer body and slow zoom lens. A camera is a tool, and with today's automatic focus and metering, not a particularly difficult tool. Outside of the lack of scene modes, there's not a lot of difference between using a consumer level DSLR and a pro DSLR today. Outside of corner case exposures, there's more to composition, direction and subject choice than there is to technical use in terms of what you have to do to get an acceptable image from the equipment.

Shooting anything longer or not stabilized takes a lot more practice. Shooting a lower-ISO body is going to cut down the time you can shoot. Every stop is a doubling of the light you can shoot in. If you can shoot an f/4 lens at or above ISO1600, it becomes a useful lens for wildlife. Most group safaris that I've read of aren't accommodating to the big guns that require lots of room and support, but you can shoot a stabilized 200-400mm lens hand-held from a vehicle and use a monopod when the occasion allows.

I generally shoot wildlife with a 400mm f/2.8 lens. With an older body, like my now backup D2x, my time pre-dawn was relatively limited because I had a maximum useful ISO of 400. Given that the f/2.8 lens needs half the light of a 200-400 zoom, at ISO 800 on a more modern body you'd have the same time restrictions. My D3x is useful past ISO 1600- extending my potential shooting time enormously. All of the bodies I listed produce publishable results at ISO 1600. When I'm lucky, and things are active during daylight, I can sometimes put a 2x TC on now that I have one that produces (just) publishable results. Most consumer zooms start off around f/5.6 or f/6.3 at the long end even at a miniscule 300mm. Even an 800mm f/5.6 lens sometimes isn't long enough for me.

For me, a "once in a lifetime" experience would be worth the rentals, learning curve and time because if I were to capture some amazing things, I'd want 20x30" prints on the walls. Most people go, see the wildlife, shoot pictures and come back with dots in the frame that don't adequately represent the experience and what they saw.

What sorts of wildlife do you shoot, and under what conditions with what equipment? What's your experience?

Paul
 
kallisti said:
OP, you opened a huge can of worms :)

The problem is that there are different niches in photography. Some are relatively cheap. Some require *very* expensive (and often cumbersome) gear to photograph well.

One of these niches is sports photography, another is wildlife photography. Both of these tend to be the most expensive gear-wise. It isn't like professional photographers like to spend money or like lugging around bulky and heavy gear. It's because that is what is required to capture "good" photos of those subjects ("good" is obviously subjective).

Take all of the comments in this thread with a grain of salt. Compuwar's idea of renting gear for the trip is quite valid, assuming you have time to learn how to use it prior to the trip. If you are really a beginner, this may not be practical.

During the day, a consumer zoom may be good enough. If you are lucky there may be animals that are comfortable enough in the presence of humans that you can get relative closeups using the long end of the zoom range on a consumer lens. With almost any camera/lens you will be able to capture the sweeping nature of the scenery you will experience on the trip.

Go into the trip with appropriate expectations. This may be such a unique experience for you that *any* photos you take will be priceless. On the other hand, if you are going into it expecting to capture a lion taking down a kill filling the frame of your photo using a $700 camera/lens, that isn't likely to happen :).

In 2008 I was in Hawaii and while on a whale watch cruise took the following shots. Somewhat similar to a safari. I had a Nikon D300 and 18-200 lens. Took these photos of whales. Notice that these were all taken with a "crop" sensor camera (which I think applies to the camera/lens choices you are considering). In full frame (film) terms these were all shot at 300mm. See how there really isn't enough "zoom" in the last photo to make the subject "big" (more accurately the lens' focal length isn't long enough)? Also of note, these were shot during the day in strong light. This lens isn't "fast" enough to be able to capture these moving subjects at dawn/dusk. Both of these (need for longer reach, more "zoom" in common parlance, and need to shoot in low light) are reasons people spend crazy amounts of money on gear to shoot wildlife--it isn't just because they can (being rich professional photographers??), it's because they have to. There is no other option.

Again, just keep your expectations in perspective. I think you will have a wonderful and photographically fulfilling trip with whatever gear you end up bringing :)

Image
Really close to boat at full zoom, 200mm.

Image
Fairly close to boat at full zoom, 200mm.

Image
Still relatively close, maybe 100-200 yards away (best guess from memory). Full zoom at 200mm. Was a calf and not an adult whale, but even with a relative telephoto lens the subject starts to get pretty small.
Click to expand...

To the OP. This makes a lot of sense to me. Personally learning to use a rented camera (considering you are an absolute beginner and not owned a DSLR before) would not be something I'd want to do on a once in a life time trip.
To buy good lenses on your budget is going to be difficult. Do you have a local camera shop that sells second hand? I picked up a D7100 yesterday that was as new condition but £250 cheaper than a new one. That's a good saving towards some good glass IMHO.
 
KimJonNumberUn said:
forgoet all those.

skip the entry levels and go to the mid range like the 60D, 70D or Nikon D700 or D7100.

they ahve more easier access to manual controls thus youare more inclined to play with manual more rather thans etting auto modes or scene modes.
Click to expand...

Second this....

Probably more money then you initial set out to spend. But a once in a lifetime safari trip isn't cheap either.

Buy a good body and the best glass you can afford. You will be reward with high quality shots that you will cherish for a lifetime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back