Rangefinder on safari?

Tom Diaz · 05-28-2005

Hiya, folks.

Roughly this time next year, I plan to go on a photo safari in eastern South Africa (Kwazulu-Natal province). I own two camera systems: Olympus OM cameras and lenses, and Leica and Voigtlander rangefinders and lenses.

I am not fond of long telephotos, like the 400mm or longer lenses considered de riguer by many people for photographing wildlife. As much as I admire some of the best "animal portraiture," I know how difficult it is to do really well. I am going to be in a 4x4 vehicle much of the time, I am sure, shooting from a fixed position, so I think I might prefer "hanging back" and getting more pictures of animals in context.

I am tempted to take only my Leica and Voigtlander cameras, which would give me lenses from a 28mm to a 135mm. No SLRs and no big tubes. Less weight and bulk. Is this unwise? What do you think?

waileong · 05-29-2005

In some cases, 400 mm or more (eg 300 mm + 2x extender) barely gets you the shot. 135 mm gets you nothing, and you can't focus well enough unless you can see through the lens because it's too small through the viewfinder.

Further, you may want the motor drive for action shots, in case there are any tigers chasing and killing zebras, for example.

It is also de rigeur to have a mount (eg Wimberley) that clips on to the window/door of the 4x4 so that you can pan the camera to follow the action.

All of which point towards an SLR system.

Remember, these are wild animals, not zoo animals. You can't get too close to them, your guide certainly won't, and 135 mm won't be enough to capture the action.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Diaz

Hiya, folks.

Roughly this time next year, I plan to go on a photo safari in eastern South Africa (Kwazulu-Natal province). I own two camera systems: Olympus OM cameras and lenses, and Leica and Voigtlander rangefinders and lenses.

I am not fond of long telephotos, like the 400mm or longer lenses considered de riguer by many people for photographing wildlife. As much as I admire some of the best "animal portraiture," I know how difficult it is to do really well. I am going to be in a 4x4 vehicle much of the time, I am sure, shooting from a fixed position, so I think I might prefer "hanging back" and getting more pictures of animals in context.

I am tempted to take only my Leica and Voigtlander cameras, which would give me lenses from a 28mm to a 135mm. No SLRs and no big tubes. Less weight and bulk. Is this unwise? What do you think?

mad_boy · 05-29-2005

I have seen some very good safari pics taken with a Leica, but....
These were using a 300mm lens and a Visioflex to mount it to the M camera.
And probably magnifications of part of the pic.

I would make sure to take (slow) very high resolution film. The subject will most of the time be too far of to be frame filling even if you carry a 400mm lens. Magnification and selection of area may be needed.

Mad_boy

Roger Hicks · 05-29-2005

Don't think you'll find many tigers in Africa...

I've never done this myself but my father got good pics with a point-and-shoot. Let's face it, this isn't a BBC wildlife programme we're talking about: the chances of seeing lions making a kill is roughly zero, but from what I've seen, for 'in-context' pictures a 135 should be more than feasible.

I'd still want a 200/3 or 300/4.5 or 200/3+doubler AS WELL though (on one of my old Nikon Fs -- sure I'd like faster lenses but 200/3 and 300/4.5 are what I own. I don't think I'd bother with my 600/8 Solid Cat though).

And as I say, I've never done it; I'm unlikely ever to be able to afford to do it; and I have no great interest in it anyway, though I have ridden an Enfield Bullet through a tiger reserve in India. Didn't see any tigers. Just as well, on a motorcycle.

Cheers,

Roger

Tim · 05-29-2005

Kenya last year. All shots Leica M6 + Voigtlander 35/1.7 or Voigtlander 90/3.5; Fuji Velvia 100. All done hand held from the inside of a Landcruiser.

It can't be done with a Rangefinder, right?

Tim · 05-29-2005

But, in all fairness, having a big lens can get you some other shots.......

All these ones Canon EOS 3; Canon 75-300 Image Stabilised lens; Fuji Provia 400.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. <shrug> It'd be easy to say take both systems, but that probably ultimately means you end up missing shots because you're juggling gear.
The point is, either will get you good shots..........

jorisbens · 05-29-2005

I think that a 135mm lens is long enough for almost all safaritrips, because a good guide should be able to bring you "very" close to the animals.

Joris

Tim · 05-29-2005

Joris, it's quite often not that simple, even on safari. like any wildlife photography, it takes more than a little luck to get close tot the animals, even with a good guide. you certainly can't rely on it. and when you do get close, the animals often aren't going to be acting naturally.
my posts above may have been a little flippant, the point i was trying (not very well) to make is that it depends largely on what kind of shot you want to get. if you want nice close ups of wildlife in natural poses, then you are going to need a big lens, with everything that entails. and then you either need two cameras, or be very adapt at swapping lenses. i'm always a little uncomfortable about swapping lenses in a bouncing truck filled with dust; for some reason it just leaves me cold.........
i was lucky on my trip, the better half was carrying the slr with the 75-300, i was carrying the m6 with the 35. between us we got all the shots we wanted. but by far the majority were scenery or animals in scenery, and they were shot with the leica and 35 or 90 lenses......

Nikon Bob · 05-29-2005

I think Tim, Roger and Joris make good points. You basically have two choices, carry a DSLR/SLR and large pro long and fast lenses to try and get frame filling animal portraits or go light with a smaller outfit for enviromental shots of animals. It would depend on what you would be satisfied with.

Bob

jaapv · 05-30-2005

Good advice in this thread. I would like to add: it depends largely where you are going.
In South-African reserves or in Kenya game can be so habituated, that it is just
one step up from a zoo. I once took a M6 with the 135 as longest lens
and got great shots, even close-ups of lions and hyena's, but that was at Londolozi in Sabie Sands and there they are geared to the tourist that "has" to see the Big Five in 24 hours, lovely though the place is.
If you go to the wild places like North Luanga or the Benguela Swamps (Zambia) or the southern Tanzanian parks like Ruaha or Selous, I find 560 mm on the short side. A very good point was made about changing lenses. If you go digital for your long lenses, like I do (usually Canon 10D and 300 mm) it is even more important, to avoid dust on the sensor.
One last piece of advice: the Groofwin thingy is very nice, but a simple bean bag is way more practical.A lot more flexible in use. You can take it empty in your luggage and fill it on
the spot.

KEH · 05-30-2005

Over the course of several safaris (see my web site below) I have concluded that longer is better for wildife - you cannot count on getting very close to all the animals. The Botswana shots were with a Canon 100-400 L IS. And you definitely do not want to be changing lenses in the dust.

The solution for my next trip will be to bring the rangefinder for wider shots and landscapes. There is certainly more to a trip in the bush than wildlife, and the long zooms can be frustrating because of the lack of any wider angles.

Cheers,
Kirk

http://www.pbase.com/kirkh

snaggs · 05-30-2005

Well, I got rid of all my SLR stuff and are going to south africa in 4 weeks.. guess Ill have to manage with my 35mm and a 135mm elmar Im looking at borrowing.

Daniel.

Tom Diaz · 05-30-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

i was lucky on my trip, the better half was carrying the slr with the 75-300, ......

Now that is a fine idea. Spousal cooperation will be the biggest challenge, because she is not so avid as I am.

Everyone's advice is very welcome. I think the place we're going (Nyala Zulu in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa) is small and probably one of those places where you get pretty close to the animals. So a 300mm or 400mm is probably the longest I'll need.

Naturally I would not think of leaving the RF equipment at home, it's only a question of whether I have to take SLR equipment as well. Looks like I do. One of my friends going with us is going to use this excuse to buy himself that digital SLR he's been wanting. I will thus have to resist the old gear-acquisition syndrome. Or will I?

Thanks again everyone. I knew I would get some experienced advice here.

Tom Diaz · 05-30-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by snaggs

Well, I got rid of all my SLR stuff and are going to south africa in 4 weeks.. guess Ill have to manage with my 35mm and a 135mm elmar Im looking at borrowing.

Daniel.

Daniel,

Needless to say perhaps, but a) have a great time there, and b) please share pictures if you don't mind.

Tom

cp_ste.croix · 05-30-2005

i did well in africa with a lens that topped out at 210mm...though i'm not sure my guide was as respecftful of the animals as i would have liked...

KEH · 06-30-2005

Just back from Tanzania, where I was using my Canon DSLR w 100-400 zoom as the primary, and my Epson RD1 as the secondary for wider shots - see attached example image from the RD1.

While the Epson worked fine, I did find it complicated shifting from the Canon with autofocus to the manual focus and manual shutter cocking on the Epson - I missed a few shots as a result. On balance, I would probably bring a cheaper/smaller DSLR as the second body next time around.

Just my 2c...

Kirk

jaapv · 06-30-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim

But, in all fairness, having a big lens can get you some other shots.......

All these ones Canon EOS 3; Canon 75-300 Image Stabilised lens; Fuji Provia 400.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. <shrug> It'd be easy to say take both systems, but that probably ultimately means you end up missing shots because you're juggling gear.
The point is, either will get you good shots..........

Nice shots, obviously Kenia/North Tanzania. Southern Africa is, however quite different. Better guiding, more personalized,fewer tourists, open vehicles and far fewer... The better choice if you want to use a RF. Just do it. Fun is guaranteed whichever camera you take (like Tim said), as are great pictures. Just dont forget to take the camera from your eye from time to time and really relish the experience!

sgy1962 · 06-30-2005

The one Safari I was on about 15 or so years ago involved a good deal of walking and some canoe travel. At tat time, I'm glad I had the autofocus Nikon SLR and that is what I would suggrest. The sound of the autofocus was never a problem, as we never got so close to the aniumals. Your shots will be in broad day light so you don't need the fast primes. I would take two zooms with coverage up to 180-200mm. Remember, a lot of your shots will be hand held. Even if I had brought a tripod w/ me, I would never have had the room to use it. I wasn't a Leica user back then, but I would also take a 28mm or 35mm lens for camp life.

I believe that if you only take a rangefinder you run the risk of not having enough reach and missing shots. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be hauling a lot of stuff around.

On second thought, a rangefinder is doable. Say a 0.85 VF w/ a 1.25 mag. Get that macro 90mm lens; a 135mm lens and a standard. That's a very appealing, compact, light weight outfit. You may miss a shot or two w/o the autofocus and a longer lens, but I bet the shot you do get will be a lot better. And safaris are not aonly about taking photos.

RObert Budding · 06-30-2005

Lucky you! I'd opt for an SLR because I'd want long lenses. I'd probably select my Mamiya 645 and add the 300mm and 500mm lenses, which are quite affordable these days.

Robert

jaapv · 06-30-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by RObert Budding

Lucky you! I'd opt for an SLR because I'd want long lenses. I'd probably select my Mamiya 645 and add the 300mm and 500mm lenses, which are quite affordable these days.

Robert

I did that one safari. I did find that I used the 2x converter a lot on the 500. It was quite usable on a beanbag. The main problems were the size and weight of the camerabag and the unweildiness of the combo in action-shots Also there was quite a large bag of film to lug along.The camera with its 80 or 150 (I used the 654E) was not much worse than say, a Canon 1D plus 70-200. Having said that the slides I took, when projected, never fail to gobsmack the audience!!

I love my little bag with RF stuff