best camera for low light and wildlife?

[jb3]

What is the best camera for shooting in low light and for shooting wildlife? As well as shooting wildlife in low life? I am planning a safari trip to Africa and would like to make sure I have a camera that does it justice. 

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I can gladly say the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Lens is a great lens.  Absolutely fantastic, I love mine.  Down side is it is very heavy.  But for a trip like you are planning tough is on the menu.  And, brother, this lens is tough.  Might be a little short though?

If it were me going on this once in a lifetime adventure I would have the best gear I could manage.  That said your 5D Mk III should do a very nice job.  I used one for years.  Great camera.

I have a friend that recently got back from such a trip.  He took a brand new 1Dx and the Sigma 150-600mm S.  IMHO, that is what I would take too.  Except I would now buy the 1Dx Mk II along with the big Siggy S.  If he still has his shots up on his web site I can point you to them in a PM.

I also had another bud that did a tour of the US visiting all 48 states.  He bought the best and sold it all when he got done a month later!   So, that might be an option for you if the extreme cost is worrying you.

Keep in mind this level of gear is heavy. But it will take whatever you throw at it.

---

I'm embarrassed to point this out, Ernie, but the number of states is now 50. We added a couple a while back. How long this situation will persist, I'm afraid I cannot say, as we live in interesting times. But that's how things are at present.

[ebiggs1]

B from B,

"I'm embarrassed to point this out, Ernie, but the number of states is now 50."

Hmmm, did not have the time to visit the more further away states that is why he only made 48 of them.  If they add Pureto Rico it would probably not be included it either.  All of us had limited time and expenses to deal with.  He pulled this cherry asignment. 

Another bud got the Alaska trip. One state, again because of time!  It was a two week job by itself. I pulled mostly western US as we have family out there so it worked out well for us.

[Waddizzle]

---

@Hammer wrote:

I am actually planning on going on one next year and have similar concerns since weight-wise I can only afford to bring one lens and one body.

I am looking at the Sigma 120-300 2.8 but I am still on the fence about if I should use the body I have - or should I upgrade. I am currently using the 5D Mk iii, but I was looking at the 1DX Mk ii. I may never get to do this again, so I want to make sure I don't make any compromises - but is the 1DX Mk ii complete overkill or worth the added expense?

---

I have never used a 5D3, but it lacks the extra battery power of a 1D series.  I just spent the weekend shooting around 1200 shots over the course of two days with my 1D Mark IV, with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, and still have half a charge, according to the camera.  I'm sure it needs a recharge, though, after so many shots.  

You're looking at big heavy lenses that can use a lot of battery power.  Having the extra battary capacity will make a difference during a long day.  I'm not sure if a 5D3 retains most of its' weather sealing with a battery grip, or not.  I shot another 600 shots with my 6D w/grip, and the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II USM, and barely put a dent in the battery level.  It still shows a full charge.

I should point out that I have disabled the auto-preview after every shot, too.  I can disable the AF with a custom button, which also saves battery life.

No, I don't think a 1D camera body is overkill.  I think it would be a wise choice to have the body build and the extra battery power.  Whether or not you need the latest 1D body is up to you, though.  If you can find the predecessor, give that a consideration, too.

If the 5D Mark III can retain its' dust and moisture sealing with a battery grip, then go for that.  Whatever you choose, get a few thousand shots under your belt before you go.  You might want to look at monopods, too.

[RobertTheFat]

Changing the battery on a 5D3 takes about 3 seconds. You don't need a battery grip; I think it's a waste of space, weight, and money.

Remember, though, that you won't see American AC outlets on your safari. Be sure you have the appropriate adapter(s) for your charger.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

Changing the battery on a 5D3 takes about 3 seconds. You don't need a battery grip; I think it's a waste of space, weight, and money.

Remember, though, that you won't see American AC outlets on your safari. Be sure you have the appropriate adapter(s) for your charger.

---

To each his own, I guess.  Personally, I don't want to be changing batteries in the field.  And, it takes several seconds to change out, but only after you have spent even more time fishing a battery out of your bag, pocket, or vest.  Oh, don't forget to put the removed battery away for safe keeping.  No, I'd say it takes more like a minute.  But, I really wouldn't know.

I have big hands, so I think a grip gives the camera body a feel.  The extra weight balances well with many lenses, most especially those with a tripod foot.  A battery grip can also use standard AA batteries, if you're in a pinch.

[Robinpow]

Went to Arfrica back in 2011. I rented a car and spent two weeks in Kruger National Park.

At that time I had the 5D II, with the 100-400L and 24-105L. Over 90% of my shots were with the 100-400L.  Today of course the 5D III or even the IV would be better, however the II handled the job.  My personal suggestion, unless you have a lot of money to burn, would be to find a refurb 5D III and 100-400L.  

Extra tip, keep your phone charged, and use it for a backup.  The thing about Africa is you need to be reading for most anything! There could be those few moments when not having a second camera, will cause you to miss a shot! I had 3 of those experiences. I had a lion with his nose on the passenger side window, a rhinoceros leaning on my front bumper, looking over my hood and last nut not least baboons playing king of the hill on my car.

Also take more memory cards than you even dream you will need!

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Robinpow wrote:

Went to Arfrica back in 2011. I rented a car and spent two weeks in Kruger National Park.

At that time I had the 5D II, with the 100-400L and 24-105L. Over 90% of my shots were with the 100-400L.  Today of course the 5D III or even the IV would be better, however the II handled the job.  My personal suggestion, unless you have a lot of money to burn, would be to find a refurb 5D III and 100-400L.  

Extra tip, keep your phone charged, and use it for a backup.  The thing about Africa is you need to be reading for most anything! There could be those few moments when not having a second camera, will cause you to miss a shot! I had 3 of those experiences. I had a lion with his nose on the passenger side window, a rhinoceros leaning on my front bumper, looking over my hood and last nut not least baboons playing king of the hill on my car.

Also take more memory cards than you even dream you will need!

---

It sounds as though National Park animals are the same everywhere. My wife and I learned on our honeymoon (if we didn't know it before) that National Park animals never overlook an opportunity to try to cadge a free meal, no matter how hard they have to work to overcome their initial fear of humans.

[Tronhard]

One thought that occurs:

If this is, as was suggested a once-in-a-lifetime event, what about renting the gear instead of buying it?  Then you can go for a 5DIV or the 7DMkII, plus the 100-400L MkII and the 1.4III adaptor - which I have and is a great kit.  I believe you can get them locally, which also saves the hassle of travelling with that gear.

Just a thought...