cary999

ok , Bobcaat, see the S3 is going for $304 now on amazon. You're gonna have more FUN than the law allows !!!

Like you said, you will need more memory cards and batteries. Panasonic cards are good, I usually buy SanDisk or Kingston. In fact just got a Kingston high speed 2gig SD card from Amazon for $30.

Batteries are interesting things. The S3 takes AA (4) which is good I think. If you stay with the NiMH rechargeable type get the Sanyo Eneloop or the Rayovac Hybrid NiMH. These new types of NiMH do not have the self discharging charge loss that the original design NiMH have. Some people just prefer using Lithium batteries. Lithium batteries are not rechargeable so you don't need the charger thing. They are good for at least 1000 photos. But what people really like is that they do not self discharge, leave them for five years and they still have a lot left in them. Bad news is they are $$$, a set of four costs $10. Any questions, holler.

regards - tom
ps - and don't forget the S3 movie mode. Set it up for best quality in the menu. Short action clips are a kick!!!!

I_HEART_TRAVELING

Tom your advice has been awesome. Thank you. All the upgrades that bobcat got, would you recommend those if I go the Amazon 300 dollar S3 route.

While I'd have to pull from savings, Ive already put so much $$ into this trip Im debating getting an S3 souped up and an SLR. Ive been frugal as can be so I do have a good amount, for a young teacher at least, saved up.

Any recommendations on lenses for an XTi from anyone? The 100-400 looks amazing, but it is out of control price wise. I'm looking for a lenses that I can take pictures in low lighting potentially because I will be seeing the gorillas in Rwanda.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens
is what Ive been looking at, thoughts? All advice in this long post have been appreciated, I htink Ive read it three times now

cary999

Well, we don't use any of those goodies that Bobcaat got. I think you can do just fine without them. And especially if you get another camera, XTi, put that money into lenses for it and leave the S3 as is. But no matter whether you get an S3 and/or DSLR you will need a couple more memory cards and batteries. So figure another $80 bucks or more.

As for lenses for gorillas in low light check out Fodors poster "sundowner". She did the gorilla trek and reported it here trip just a couple months ago. Have you seen it? Some great photos and I don't remember if she needed a big long lens for that. That is, something as simple as a 85mm f2.8 might work fine. Are you listening - Cindy - ? Help.

regards - tom
ps - with a little luck, here may be the link to sundowner's report - http://tinyurl.com/24fjy3
from 3/20/2007 no that long ago

Chris_GA_Atl

Lenses for gorilla photography -- we use a Digital Rebel XTi, and on our recent trip we got very lucky with good lighting and good weather on all four of our gorilla treks. Moreover, we encountered the gorillas at varying distances, but usually around 30 feet. So the combination of good light and distance made the 100-400L a good choice for our gorilla treks. Divewop, another member of this forum and a very accomplished photographer, uses a very similar Nikon lens for her gorilla pictures (the Nikon 80-400VR).

However, on one trek, the sky was overcast and the gorillas were in a deep bamboo forest (the Hirwa Group), and we found the 100-400 to be both too slow in terms of aperture and too long in focal length for that day. We still got some good pictures that day, but we would have been better with a shorter, faster lens like the Canon 70-200/2.8. This is the lens Cindy (Sundowner) used for her pictures, which came out very well.
Cindy's pictures are hosted on PBase:
http://www.pbase.com/cjw/gorillas_in_rwanda_jan_2007

And ours are as well:
http://www.pbase.com/cwillis/gorillas

So your specific question is, how would the Canon 70-300 do for gorilla photography. The simple answer is that it will be fine under good lighting and if the gorillas are close, but it will suffer in low light because of a relatively slow aperture and will also suffer if the gorillas are at a greater distance. I am confident that it would outperform any point and shoot out there, though.

If money were not object, I would have taken both the 100-400 and the 70-200/2.8. But I could only buy one telephoto for our trip, and the 100-400 was a better all-around choice in my view. Depending on how important it is to you to get really high quality pictures, I would suggest either getting the 100-400 or 70-200/2.8. Many people buy these lenses and then sell them after a vacation, because they hold their value quite well.

Whatever lens you end up getting, take the time to practice with it before you go. That will get you used to how it performs under different circumstances.

Chris

I_HEART_TRAVELING

I should've mentioned I'm also going on a safari in Tanzania, and Im trying to keep it under 2000 dollars for all of this, so getting two lenses that cost around 500 dollars is probably a little much.

It is my understanding that even though the 70-200mm/2.8 is a better lenses, I should have a 300 mm at least for safari. Plus the cost of the 70-200/mm is a little high. I hear you on the idea of selling it afterwards, but Im wary of that and worry Id be crossing over my comfort level.

Perhaps get the 70-300, body only xti AND something like this guy ? Tamron AF 28-75mm/f2.8 ? I just can't do a 1000 dollar plus lens.

Thank you very much both of you for your excellent friendly advice. I've always been a point and shooter, so I do need it. Ill go to the links you sent me as well, Im just trying to find a good deal on a body only xti.

I_HEART_TRAVELING

I should have said 500 dollars each. Also, amazing pictures guys, just amazing.

Chris_GA_Atl

If I were taking our trip and I had $2000 as my photo gear budget, I would buy either a new Digital Rebel XT (the previous model) or a used XTi, with the 18-55 kit lens to use for landscape/wide angle work. Either option will cost you about $600. Then I would get the 100-400, especially since you are also going to Tanzania and you will want as much focal length as you can get. The 100-400 is $1400, so add those things and you are at $2000. That way you are spending your money where it is most likely to give you the greatest photographic benefit -- on your telephoto lens. If you needed to cut the price further, get a used XT or even go back to one of the original Digital Rebels. I firmly believe that the quality of the lens makes a much bigger difference in image quality than the camera body itself. You could reduce the price further by getting the Sigma 80-400 (which costs about $1000), which is not quite as good as the Canon 100-400 but is functionally pretty similar and would serve well in a wide variety of situations (although it would have the same weakness in low light as the 100-400 does).

For buying new equipment, I highly recommend B&H Photo & Video (www.bhphotovideo.com). They have excellent prices and a stellar reputation.

Chris

I_HEART_TRAVELING

Just went to B & P, I cant continue to thank you guys enough. Ive been looking at tons of reviews. Could the cheap 50mm/1.8 be good enough for gorillas when they get in close, mixed with the 70-300 IS??

Please dont take this as me ignoring your advice, but Im just thinking the 100-400 is too heavy and too much $$$.

I know I'm going to feel anxious about carrying it around. I know it will offer the best option for everything Im doing....., Ive read that here...., but Id like to avoid dropping that kind of $$$.

I guess I shouldve been clearer as well, I dont want to go over 1500 for my camera because I was planning on getting a Hard Drive Camcorder. My fault.

Chris_GA_Atl

I doubt you would get so close to the gorillas that the wide end of the 70-300 would be too much. Even on our Hirwa trek when we were forced to use a shorter lens than the 100-400, I was looking at our pictures and almost all of them were shot at 80-85mm focal length. And Cindy's pictures (taken with the 70-200) were of the same group in the same tight forest. Both of these things suggest to me that you are not likely to need something wider than 70mm to take gorilla pictures.

I have not used the 50/1.8, although a friend of mine has one. He likes it a lot for taking pictures of family events, but he doesn't shoot animal pictures so that doesn't tell me much about its suitability for your purposes. I will say that when you only have a couple of lenses, my view is that zooms are better because they are more flexible. Prime (fixed focal length) lenses can frequently give better image quality or offer other benefits (like faster apertures), but the envelope of situations in which you can use them is smaller, and if your entire kit is only two lenses, I would recommend a wide-angle zoom like the Tamron 28-75 you mentioned, or the Sigma 17-70 (which costs about the same). Either would be good all-around lenses for taking pictures of landscapes, people, buildings, and things like that. And both of them would compliment a 70-300 with little or no overlap in focal length range.
Chris

spiegelcjs

After doing a lot of research and asking tons of questions on this board I chose the Pentax K100D and the Tamron 28x300 lens. The camera with a 28x55 lens was about $550.00 at Beach Camera on line, and then the Tamron lens was about $499 at my local camera shop. My borhter is an avid photographer and he finally went shopping with me because I was having a hard time deciding as I had never used an SLR.

Have not taken our trip yet but have been practicing with the camera and I am thrilled. It is so easy and takes great pictures.

I_HEART_TRAVELING

Darn it, ya know Speigls....now Im looking at getting the Pentax and looking for lenses....and I thought after speaking with Chris I was all set. URGH

Chris_GA_Atl

If you'd like to read an in-depth review of the K100D, I suggest http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk100d. DPreview also has an excellent review of the Rebel XTi and pretty much every other digital SLR you can think of.

I am certain that the K100D is capable of taking excellent pictures. But I doubt it is optimal for wildlife photography principally because of its very limited continuous shooting ability. Its buffer only holds 4 JPEG images or 3 RAW images. Compare to the XTi, which can shoot at a higher frame rate and has a buffer that holds 27 JPEGs or 9 RAWs, even though it has a much higher resolution (10MP vs. 6.1). When you shoot wildlife, you need as much continuous shooting capability as you can -- I would think 4 frames max would be very limiting. That fact, plus the more limited selection of available lenses, would lead me to choose the Canon, or a Nikon D80 for that matter.
The Pentax has the advantage of being a lot less expensive, though.
I know that camera selection is bewildering because all of the options out there and all of the statistics about each camera. I think you should consider carefully what you want to use the camera for and then choose based on the attributes that will help with that particular application.
Hope this helps.
Chris

I_HEART_TRAVELING

Chris, thanks for the links and advice.

I pretty much eliminated the Pentax after your last post. Thinking of taking your advice and getting a cheaper camera at this point, but not as crazy of a lense as the 100-400 still. If I'd gone back to grad school and was a professor maybe, but I haven't done that yet .

The Nikon D50 can be purchased used or refurbished for 250-400 Im finding, so Im thinking that might be my best option. I've been reading a ton of reviews and comparisons at this point. Any reason to think that would be a bad move?

Also, my girlfriend went ahead and bought a S3 IS, which will serve as the "backup". Thanks. Almost done.