DSLR + Lens for Patagonia?

Posting for a friend....

He is going to Patagonia later this year and asked me for a DSLR + lens recommendation.

His main interest is landscape and vistas, of which he'll have plenty, so having a wide low end is key. He also would like to get some wildlife, mainly some of the mammals, the guanacos or whatever the llama relatives out there are called. He's not that interested in small birds.

His budget is $1500.

I'm thinking that a 80D + 18-135mm kit would set him back about $1200 or so. Maybe just renting a 100-400II would cover the long end and would still keep the total under $1500 for a 2 week trip.

The concern I have is whether 18mm on a crop sensor is wide enough. Maybe a 10-18mm should be also thrown in? And does he really need the 100-400mm for Patagonia? Not sure how far away the guanacos will be.

Any other ideas? Any suggestions from those who have visited Patagonia would be welcome!

If he hasn't got a DSLR already, I'm guessing he isn't into photography that much, so why does he want one now? For most people, who don't have the critical eye of even an amateur photographer, given that he's going to be traveling, why not suggest a bridge camera? That would give him the focal length range he says he wants but in a lighter, cheaper and simpler package.

Thanks! That's a good point - I'll have to check with him on that, since he specifically asked for a DSLR recommendation. Maybe he'll be fine with a bridge camera.

I will second that if this person is already not into photography to begin with, buying a $1k+ package just to take wide angle FOV shots of random landscapes isn't going to be any different than doing it with a $400 camera of some kind. It's not like this person is going to be shooting RAW and lifting shadows or recovering highlights, etc, and/or bracketing to do HDR or composites, etc, where they're using the dynamic range of a new sensor, etc, I assume. I might be wrong. But buying the best sensor won't change what will come out of a camera when pointed at a landscape set on P/AV/TV or whatever equivalent there is.

I think also a bridge or fixed lens kit, small, with a M43's sensor or 1" sensor is plenty good for this for someone who is not already well into this hobby with an understanding of what gear they need for what they do.

Most people buy this stuff, go on a trip, take 1000+ photos, never edit them, and that's the end of it. So I wouldn't suggest a $1k+ system for someone who's not already significantly into this hobby both on the acquisition of photos and the editing/processing of said photos to the finished product.

Maybe have this person look at: Sony RX100 series (III), Canon PowerShot series, Olympus OM-D series, etc.

Very best,

I have spent some time in Patagonia, specifically in Torres del Paine national park in Chile. To shoot guanaco you still need some long lenses...they might be bigger than birds, but you also may not be that close to them!
There were not that many opportunities that they were not 'too far' away, while I was there. Since I do not shoot wildlife, 150mm was more than enough generally for me, although I did mount a telextender for a few shots!

'Wide' is relative to the shooter! For some folks (referenced to 135 film need) 35mm is 'wide', while for others it is 28mm, and for folks like me it is 24mm. Yet for the modern FF digital shooter accustomed to access of ultrawide zooms (16-35mm, or 17-40mm), and 24mm is 'not nearly wide enough' !

Divide all the above FL by 1.6 to try to assess for your friend what his APS-C equivalent is (22mm, 18mm, 17mm, etc)/ For me, happiness was 24mm on FF body, 15mm on APS-C body...but I, too, have succumbed to the need for ultrawide FL at times, I have a 10-20mm zoom.

On my Patagonia trip (photos in my gallery) I took my 14-24 (which saw the most work), 24-70 (2nd most used) and 70-200. If I was going back I would sub-out the 70-200 for my 150-600. I don't shoot wildlife but there are plenty of long lens opportunities for landscapes although they may be hard to visualize for someone new to photography.

Now, that setup won't fit the budget for your friend but a focal range of 14-400+ would be my recommendation using whatever camera and lens combo would fit into that budget.

Something like a Canon M50 with a 15-45mm lens might be just perfect?

I would keep it simple and small..... something like the Sony RX100 VI pro RX100 V. It will capture everything they need. Has in body stabilization. A good lens. Fast autofocus. Blazing fps. Good sensor. If they aren't already into DSLRs, this isn't the time to learn. Yes, they will look more "pro" with one, but the reality is they will be able to take more shots in more place with a small camera than they will with a big rig.

And they will enjoy their trip more not hauling a ton of stuff with them...

Probably can pick one up used at BH.

Croasdail wrote in post #18890180
If they aren't already into DSLRs, this isn't the time to learn.

... and there is not enough motivation to lug around all this gear. Go small - go light - this is usually the recommendation I give in this situation.