I primarily shoot professional sports but I like a little bit of wildlife from time to time, photographed red deer in Glen Etive last week and I've photographed ospreys, swans etc. in the last couple of months and I'll do more as the opportunity arises - I was in Yellowstone in the summer and I'm going back in the next couple of years which is what I'm preparing for.
This summer I used my Fuji x-t2 and 100-400 and got OK results but while I love my Fuji I don't really like the images from that combination at the long end - and everything wildlife I've photographed in Scotland has been with my Canon kit that I use for sport.
So I intend taking my Canon 400 f2.8 ii with me on my next visit to the states - With this in mind I have been looking at getting a decent Gitzo tripod and a good gimbal to support the lens - That comes to just over a grand and while I've got the money sitting there for them I'm now debating how much worth I'd get out of it, rather than just using my monopod to support the camera and lens - In Yellowstone we happened across wildlife on a regular basis, it wasn't really a case of stalking out an area and waiting for something to appear.
The major advantages of a tripod with a gimbal over a good monopod to me are for birds in flight (being able to swing the lens up to an angle which would be tricky with a monopod) and for holding the lens ready to use waiting for an animal to appear or do something interesting.
As far as the first of these situations is concerned I can hand hold the camera and 400 reasonably well though I wouldn't want to do it for a lengthy period) and I'm used to cradling a monopod ready to use for the second situation. I doubt I'll be sitting in a hide waiting for animals to appear
I'm sure there's an advantage to using a tripod for wildlife in my situation that's glaringly obvious that I've missed - feel free to point any advantages I've missed out?
This summer I used my Fuji x-t2 and 100-400 and got OK results but while I love my Fuji I don't really like the images from that combination at the long end - and everything wildlife I've photographed in Scotland has been with my Canon kit that I use for sport.
So I intend taking my Canon 400 f2.8 ii with me on my next visit to the states - With this in mind I have been looking at getting a decent Gitzo tripod and a good gimbal to support the lens - That comes to just over a grand and while I've got the money sitting there for them I'm now debating how much worth I'd get out of it, rather than just using my monopod to support the camera and lens - In Yellowstone we happened across wildlife on a regular basis, it wasn't really a case of stalking out an area and waiting for something to appear.
The major advantages of a tripod with a gimbal over a good monopod to me are for birds in flight (being able to swing the lens up to an angle which would be tricky with a monopod) and for holding the lens ready to use waiting for an animal to appear or do something interesting.
As far as the first of these situations is concerned I can hand hold the camera and 400 reasonably well though I wouldn't want to do it for a lengthy period) and I'm used to cradling a monopod ready to use for the second situation. I doubt I'll be sitting in a hide waiting for animals to appear
I'm sure there's an advantage to using a tripod for wildlife in my situation that's glaringly obvious that I've missed - feel free to point any advantages I've missed out?
Last edited: