DSLR for African Safari - Thoughts?

[Pacolovestacos]

Hey folks,

Going to climb Kilimanjaro and then do an African Safari in roughly 4 weeks. For all my previous trips, I've always just used my cam phone which sufficed. But for this trip, would really love to have something stronger, mostly for the animal part of it.

So I'm thinking about a DSLR camera. Any suggestions? Someone mentioned a Canon EOS 70D.

 

[mom2rtk]

70D would be nice. Definitely stay with a crop sensor for the extra reach. I would look into renting a nice quality zoom.

Whatever you get, be sure to practice with it before going.

Is your safari separate from your climb? Because I sure wouldn't want to be carrying a heavy lens on a climb like that.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

The safari is after the climb. I need to check with my tour and find out what they will do with my luggage as I obviously won't be dragging it up the mountain, lol.

 

[havoc315]

You can rent gear, if you have no interest in long term ownership of a dSLR. It would also give you a chance to get premium equipment for a safari.
Essentially, you'll want something with a good autofocus system and preferably a fast burst rate, to capture moving wildlife.
The leading options are probably the Canon 7dii, Nikon d500 and Sony a77ii.
If you are looking to buy at more of a consumer level, ANY modern current dSLR will be just fine. They each have some pros and cons, but none are necessarily and better or worse for a safari.
You'll want a high quality zoom lens -- at a minimum, one of the 70-300's, but for this type of trip I'd go with a zoom that goes to 400 or longer. (Just be warned it will start to weight quite a bit).

 

[Pacolovestacos]

Any thoughts on a bridge camera? Someone recommended the RX10 III. Lens goes to 600 and it has an excellent, excellent sensor.

 

[havoc315]

That is probably the very best bridge camera if you want to keep it simple and smaller than a dSLR.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

That is probably the very best bridge camera if you want to keep it simple and smaller than a dSLR.

That's kind of what I'm thinking havoc. I tend to shoot a lot in low light though so I'm trying to find out how it performs in those situations. Or conversely how it performs with extreme sun. Shooting with my cell phone is awful in at night or when the sun is shining extremely bright, it's almost pointless to take pics with the cell.

 

[havoc315]

That's kind of what I'm thinking havoc. I tend to shoot a lot in low light though so I'm trying to find out how it performs in those situations. Or conversely how it performs with extreme sun. Shooting with my cell phone is awful in at night or when the sun is shining extremely bright, it's almost pointless to take pics with the cell.

I used the rx100 for a while -- essentially the same sensor. It will do great in bright light, you have an EVF so you don't need to rely on the LCD. I believe it has built in ND filter, bright light definitely not an issue.
Low light -- that's the holy grail, that's what drives people to spend thousands of dollar for a tiny bit more performances.
All I can say, the rx10iii will be better in low light than any other bridge camera on the market. I wouldn't expect to get great shots by candlelight but it will certainly out perform your phone.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

Are you at all familiar with the FZ1000? Apparently it and the RX10iii are the top 2. But the RX10iii is double the cost so trying to determine if it's worth the double.

 

[havoc315]

The fz1000 is a slightly older model. Still essentially the same size sensor and same image quality.
The biggest difference -- the rx10iii's lens gives you 50% more reach, and it's a little faster on the wide end. So on the telephoto end, you get 400mm from the fz1000 and 600mm from the rx10iii.
I believe telephoto zoom is a widely overrated featured for 95% of shooting. But for shooting wildlife on a safari, that's when you truly want as much telephoto reach as you can get.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

Yes there is now an FZ2100 I believe but it's basically twice the cost of the 1000 and I'm not sure the added features justify that. Good point on the Rx reach. Tough choice, need to think about it a little bit.

 

[zackiedawg]

The RX10III also has a weather-sealed body, and by all reviews I've seen a much better build - it would probably take more abuse and a little water exposure if needed - that's one other thing that the extra cost is getting you. IQ-wise, both should be pretty solid.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

I think I may opt for the FZ1000. Excellent price and the reviews are quite stellar. Doesn't have the extra reach that the RX10iii has but with that price for the RX ($1,600), I almost feel like it's better to start looking at a DSLR body and glass.

 

[havoc315]

I think I may opt for the FZ1000. Excellent price and the reviews are quite stellar. Doesn't have the extra reach that the RX10iii has but with that price for the RX ($1,600), I almost feel like it's better to start looking at a DSLR body and glass.

I'm sure you'd be happy with the fz1000. But if the camera is just for the safari, you may want to consider renting, instead of compromising.
If you think you'd want to keep it long term, different story.

In terms of a dSLR instead, it would be much more expensive to get the same results. About $500-700 for the dSLR body. You'd need to add the Canon 100-400 or Nikon 80-400. Those lenses run $1500 to $2000.
Total would be $2000-$2500, and much bigger and heavier than the rx10iii.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

I'm sure you'd be happy with the fz1000. But if the camera is just for the safari, you may want to consider renting, instead of compromising.
If you think you'd want to keep it long term, different story.

In terms of a dSLR instead, it would be much more expensive to get the same results. About $500-700 for the dSLR body. You'd need to add the Canon 100-400 or Nikon 80-400. Those lenses run $1500 to $2000.
Total would be $2000-$2500, and much bigger and heavier than the rx10iii.

I have a ton of trips coming up so I'll definitely get some use out of the FZ1000. I'm someone who has always just taken selfies on my phone cam so I feel like the pics that I get on the FZ will blow me away. But given my love for travel, I definitely feel like it might be time to start looking at some big boy cameras. I'd rather spend the $2,500 on a DSLR + Top Glass instead of $1,600 on the RX.

 

[havoc315]

I have a ton of trips coming up so I'll definitely get some use out of the FZ1000. I'm someone who has always just taken selfies on my phone cam so I feel like the pics that I get on the FZ will blow me away. But given my love for travel, I definitely feel like it might be time to start looking at some big boy cameras. I'd rather spend the $2,500 on a DSLR + Top Glass instead of $1,600 on the RX.

Just beware, the pics may not blow you away... from the fz1000, rx10iii or dSLR. In many cases, the pics are not appreciably better than an iPhone. Which is why camera sales are currently plummeting. And I know many people who have bought "real cameras" only then to leave them in the closet when the pics from their phone look just as good.

Without investing time learning photography, the fz1000/rx10iii will still give you a couple advantages over iPhone --- telephoto reach will be blatantly obvious. You may also start to find low light photos start to look a little better.
Beyond that, it will depend how much you learn about photography with your new camera.

As to a dSLR... that $2500 isn't getting you top telephoto glass. Just usable. The rx10iii would match or exceed the capabilities of the $2500 dSLR package for most uses. Don't get me wrong, a dSLR has higher potential, but you're spending $3k+ and carrying a couple bricks to exceed the potential. My dSLR kit easily exceeds the rx10iii, but my kit is about $6k+... and shooting at 600mm, the rx10iii would still be much better than my $6k kit. (But at 440mm and less, my kit kicks butt, lol).

 

[Pacolovestacos]

So that's the thing, on almost all of my trips, 600mm is meaningless. As to RX vs. FZ, that's the real question here for me. Many reviews of people who've compared the two cameras seem to think the FZ generally captures better images at 400mm or less. The RX has the extra reach but that's about it.

 

[mom2rtk]

Just be careful not to invest in a system that is best for only one trip. Plan long term for what you will need most, then find ways to make it work for this trip.

If you're serious about the DSLR, don't forget about the option of renting some of that high end glass. Just be mindful of the size/weight issues that come with it. I have really enjoyed renting some lenses on recent trips.

 

[Pacolovestacos]

Mom that's a good point, I just think I'm getting low on time to learn the DSLR. No point in spending that kind of money and effort to carry weight if I'm only going to get a minimal improvement in pics. That's kind of why I'm debating the FZ vs. RX at this point.

 

[havoc315]

Mom that's a good point, I just think I'm getting low on time to learn the DSLR. No point in spending that kind of money and effort to carry weight if I'm only going to get a minimal improvement in pics. That's kind of why I'm debating the FZ vs. RX at this point.

It is true, I've almost never had the need for 600mm. For most of my vacations, I stick to under 100mm. When I need something only for a limited time, I consider renting.

But.... the fz1000/rx10iii have the exact same learning curve as a dSLR.
They all have auto functions you can rely on, they all have lots of semi-auto functions, and they all have manual controls.
I had the rx100... I actually found my dSLR simpler.