[Nicolas06]

I have spent 1 week rougly in Tanzania (7 full days + 2 days on the plane) doing safari/game drive last september.

The goal in this thread is to report that experience from a photographic standpoint. One key point for me is that choosing carefully the location, the season is much more important for the actual result than the gear. I got there with K3, DA55-300 and 17-70, I got lot of great photo and it was overall a fantastic experience.

A few first photos to illustrate the possibilities (more after)






Where to go and when ?

What count is that there lot of wildlife, there isn't much flora and you go at the dry season.

The flora and season are crutial, otherwise, the widlife is simply hidden and while you may get occasionnally a few great shots, you'll see many time less and you'll need far better gear for it.

For african Safari, I understand that Kenya and Tanzania are the best place worldwide. Tanzania has less tourists, the top national park with Ngorongoro and Serengeti and a few millions mamal to see. They have the greatest density of lions, elephants and gnus.

The 2 parks Ngorongoro and Serengeti are so nice not only because of all the wildlife but because there really no much flora in the dry season. You see far and well and so you'll be able to find yourself surrounded by hundred of zebras, gnus and gazelles all the time.

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-03-2016 at 03:23 PM.

[Nicolas06]

Getting organized.

Safari are very expensive. So travel agencies tend to pack a lot of parks in a very short time with lot of driving in between and put more time at the beach (that is almost free) to compensate. Typically, by default you are in a shared 4x4 or minibus wit 5-8 persons.

This look well said like that, but trust me this is the opposite of what you actually want.

You really need to check that you have lot of time at each place. You'll want to change place of course, but the day when you drive from a park to another, whatever is said you see far less. When you stay at a place for a full day or two is when you really see things. You have the time to move to the right spots, to do a walk maybe even and experience the thing. Safari take time and widlife doesn't care you are in a hurry.

If you rush you'll miss opportunities. I have seen lot of tourist 4x4 and bus going fast, not even stopping to see a cheetah, simply because they had to leave for the next place. A cheetah, you may not even see it doing safari all day long for a week. That not something you should let pass.

And if you are too many in the car, you can't move. You can't really see half of the time, expect maybe if you are on front because animals are only on one side most often. It may be that the best sight seeing opportunity for lion will be on the other side and that everybody in the car will rush to it.

Too many peoples that don't know that well each other is bad. Being 3-4 that know each other and are respectuous is key. Really take the private 4x4 option. it may be a bit more expensive, but that simply a whole different experience. You are also then in control. You can take more time in a given place, ask for a stop if you find the place lovely. It is much, much better.

Number of days doing safari:

I think you need to go to at least 2-3 different places with different type of wildlife and to stay at least one full day on each plus transit day. So that 4-5 days. We did more with 7 days. We enjoyed it a lot, but I can get that for some it could be long. So maybe do 4 days, not that many parks maybe 2, and then if you want visit the country, go to beach whatever. That's fine. But really avoid doing 10 parks, just passing by and avoid long distances. Expect 25mph at best.

[Nicolas06]

The photographic gear.

If you go at the dry season (say for example July-October for Tanzania) and you go to places like Serengeti, you'll get thousand of opportunities, you'll see dozen thousand of animals, you'll not be able to count. The wildlife doesn't care of your car, of your gear, of you. Lions can be 3 meters from the car and there a lot of things to see.

As a consequence, there no need for high end gear. The 55-300, I can certify it did a great job. Yes it is not sharp at 100%, yet it need a bit more post processing, but it is really enough. It being a zoom, light, WR and innexpensive is really nice. You'll not need that much WA, so maybe take one transtandard on top, but that about it.

I guess a 60-250 would do wonder as well as a 150-450 on a K1. Don't expect to much reach anyway as the atmospheric fog would kit it. The only benefit of a very long lenses would be a few birds here and there for the desperate birders.

Don't be affraid of the light or high iso and apperture. There lot of light, there never enough dof if you want a few animals all in focus anyway. Light was never an issue, except for the night safari, but there even the best gear wouldn't do the job. Honestly, you don't need advanced AF or high burst rate or whatever advanced features. Wildlife doesn't move that fast, they don't care, there so many opportunities...

Really you don't need that advanced gear. A K30, a 55-300 and basically you are set. If you want to improve, maybe K3 and 60-250 and you have more than you need.

[Nicolas06]

A few lions

K3, DA55-300 @300mm, f/10, 1/800, iso500



K3, DA55-300 @300mm, f/10, 1/1600, iso320



K3, DA55-300 @300mm, f/10, 1/800, iso500

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-03-2016 at 03:05 PM.

[Nicolas06]

A few zebra/gazelles/gnus/buffalos


K3, DA55-300 @55mm, f/10, 1/1000, iso320



K3, DA55-300 @300mm, f/8, 1/1000, iso250



K3, DA55-300 @230mm, f/7.1, 1/1000, iso200



K3, DA55-300 @150mm, f/4.5, 1/1250, iso320



K3, DA55-300 @150mm, f/8, 1/2000, iso1000

[Nicolas06]

A few giraffes/birds/elephants

K3, DA55-300 @300mm, f/10, 1/2000, iso1600



K3, DA55-300 @87.5mm, f/8, 1/500, iso200



K3, DA55-300 @300mm, f/8, 1/1000, iso160



K3, DA55-300 @210mm, f/8, 1/500, iso200



K3, DA55-300 @300mm, f/9, 1/1000, iso500

[RAART]

Amazing experience!

[biz-engineer]

The location, time of the year, weather, subject, viewpoint and background are more important then the gear (it that summarize some of this thread), although a lot of inexperienced wildlife photographers tend to claim that longer lens is necessary. Either you are on a car, or you are in a blind, if not , in a lot of places there is no way to get close enough for even 800mm, so all the fuzz and misconceptions in the threads discussing about lack of long lenses for Pentax. What you show here is that you were able to make great photographs with an apsc camera and a cheap tele lens. According to a book I have about wildlife photography, there is a statistic about focal length most used and the most used range is 200-400, that covers 80% of cases, 600mm and beyond covering less than 10% of cases.

---------- Post added 03-11-16 at 23:11 ----------

I like the best photo #8.

[pepperberry farm]

super - thanks for sharing this!

[clackers]

although a lot of inexperienced wildlife photographers tend to claim that longer lens is necessary. Either you are on a car, or you are in a blind, if not , in a lot of places there is no way to get close enough for even 800mm, so all the fuzz and misconceptions in the threads discussing about lack of long lenses for Pentax.

Yes, like a lot of people on this forum I enjoy Norm's shots (many of his best are from inside a hide) and Rupert's (his hide is his actual house - shoots through the study window).

[Nicolas06]

Thanks RAART, thanks pepperberry farm !

[Nicolas06]

The location, time of the year, weather, subject, viewpoint and background are more important then the gear (it that summarize some of this thread), although a lot of inexperienced wildlife photographers tend to claim that longer lens is necessary. Either you are on a car, or you are in a blind, if not , in a lot of places there is no way to get close enough for even 800mm, so all the fuzz and misconceptions in the threads discussing about lack of long lenses for Pentax. What you show here is that you were able to make great photographs with an apsc camera and a cheap tele lens. According to a book I have about wildlife photography, there is a statistic about focal length most used and the most used range is 200-400, that covers 80% of cases, 600mm and beyond covering less than 10% of cases.

---------- Post added 03-11-16 at 23:11 ----------

I like the best photo #8.

Yep, this is really the key: the gear is secondary as long as you have something decent.

I shown it today to a colleague new to photography, very enthousiast on gear. He got some APSC Canon and focus a lot on the gear. How great it would be to have an FF, to have high end L lenses etc etc.

Today he asked to me how I managed it. What fantastic gear I had to get so great shots ? He doesn't really know Pentax. it doesn't criticize it but it considered like a secret weapon there seeing the photos. Surely it must be very expensive and advanced to manage that.

I sad I did it with a consumer lens. About 350€. No need for expensive gear.

[clackers]

And thanks for all the tips as well as the pics, Nicolas - makes things easier for any of us planning to do something similar.


Looks like you had a great time!

[timb64]

What a great experience and wonderful resultant pictures.Thanks for sharing both with us Nicolas.

[jpzk]

Looks like you had the time of your life there!

Great images, great writing content and details.

Cheers!