A one camera - one lens day

[rpcrowe]

I tried the one camera and one lens theme during the Civil War Reenactment in Vista, California today.

I used my 7D Mark-2 camera and my 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II lens. I knew from experience that I wanted tight shots in order to avoid evidence of the 21st Century such as telephone poles, modern buildings and modern vehicles. So the 100-400 II was my lens of choice.

Most of the reenactors are very careful about their dress and accessories. I didn't notice this dude with feather in his hat was wearing sun glasses and I ended up ditching quite a few good shots because of those glasses.



IMO. reenactment images should look like the original except if you intentionally want to bring some 21st Century into the image like a modern kid looking at a Civil War Battle Flag.

I posted other images of this reenactment on the CiC People and Pets category...

More reenactment images are at: https://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/Other/CIVIL-WAR/i-S53JLg5

This includes some previous coverage. Today's coverage starts with this image:

[Shadowman]

That zoom range was more than sufficient, sometimes shorter focal lengths are needed depending on the close focal range but at times it's just enough. Nice series. I was thinking about another zoom for my FF, currently only having the 70-300mm FX; might spring for the 24-70mm.

[LePetomane]

Richard, Very nice. My wife, son and I really enjoyed the series. There is a guy in #55 with sunglasses, too.

I think the Civil War is the most misunderstood conflict in our country.

[rpcrowe]

It was certainly a mixed up war...

I had a cousin who was born in Alabama and lived in Texas. She dearly wanted to join "The Daughters of The Confederacy". A requirement to join that organization is an ancestor who fought for the South during the Civil War. We were doing our family genealogy; she to get proof of a Confederate soldier in her background and I for just learning about my ancestors.

She called me up and was overjoyed to have found one of our ancestors who served in the First Alabama Cavalry, U.S.A....

It turned out that the First Alabama Cavalry U.S.A. was U.S. Army. Every Southern state with the exception (I believe) of Louisiana had regiments of troops fighting for the North. That specific ancestor of ours originated from Northern Alabama which was a hotbed of Union Sympathy. They were mostly small farmers who didn't own slaves and their loyalty was with the North.

[Tringa]

Some great shots there, Richard, in particular the group shots on page three, and especially 50 and 51, on your link.

Dave

[rpcrowe]

Thanks for the kind comments. Here's one I found in a old trunk in the attic of a ruined Ante Belum Mansion

[John 2]

That's a stunning set overall Richard in which there are some exceptional images. Of the portraits, no. 25 in particular, is special.

[LePetomane]

Richard, I went through the series again. It would be hard for me to pick a favorite. The topic is an unusual departure from your dog photos.

I lived in Louisville, Kentucky for a while and there were a lot of Civil War buffs there. Kentucky was a border state and had plans to join the Confederacy had the war continued. We did visit Corydon, Indiana which was one of the two battles in the Union. I also visited Appomattox Court House which is not a courthouse at all. I would like to have visited more sites but it was not a priority at the time.

No Civil War ancestry on either side of my family as my mom was from eastern Europe as was my paternal grandparents.

[rpcrowe]

Thanks for the kind remarks. John, here is a color version from the set of this young lady in #25...


Each time I shoot with this lens, I respect its capabilities more and more. Some photographers are wide angle buffs but, I have always loved longer lenses. I still respect and love my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens but. I realize that in many situations, the 100-400 II is even more versatile.

I had attended the Civil War Reenactment previously with the 70-200 as my longest lens. Although I was able to capture some fine portraits with that focal range, it just wasn't long enough to capture what I liked of the action sequences such as this image which I shot at 400mm on my 1.6x crop 7D Mark 2:


The combination of my 7D2 and the 100-400 II enabled me to get above a 95% keeper rate regarding sharpness. I attribute that to both the lens and the camera.



There are two downsides to this lens. First, it is expensive but, Canon L Glass tends to hold its value pretty well so I can consider this as an investment (at least I can tell myself that). Second, the lens is heavy (right about the weight of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens) but, that weight can be mitigated to a great degree by using a monopod. I rest my camera on the monopod while waiting to shoot, use it, of course, while I am shooting, and I carry the camera/lens over my shoulder while attached to the pod.

I shot this event using aperture priority at f/8 and selected ISO 320 because I know that I can get excellent results at that ISO and it provides me with a decently fast shutter speed at f/8. However, the Image Stabilization on this lens is so good that I really don't need a very high shutter speed...

I had been shooting events like airshows with a pair of 7D cameras wearing 300mm f/4L IS and 400mm f/5.6L lenses. The single camera with the 100-400 II zoom is considerably lighter in weight than the two cameras and two lenses yet, this lens gives results which in real-life shooting are even better than what I achieved using the 300L and 400L primes. I am not saying that this lens would test out better than the two primes (although maybe it would) what I am saying is that I can achieve better results overall with this lens than I did with the primes...


I am going to attend the Red Bull Air Race next month and I think that I will start with the 100-400 + 1.4x TC on my 7D2 and my 70-200 on my 5D2. That way, I will have the gamut of 70mm to 896mm (equivalent) covered... I hope to shoot from across the San Diego Bay from Coronado Island to get the San Diego City skyline in the background...

[Shadowman]

A recent one camera/ one lens (85mm 1.8) convinced me to get a more variable setup (24-70 2.8) for the next outing under similar conditions. I'd used the 85 for the third year in a row for that particular lowlight event and was a bit disappointed in the number of cropped limbs I kept getting.

[rpcrowe]

The + thing about a zoom lens is that I am able to crop in the camera. Using prime lenses, I would need to use the next wider lens (unless serendipitously the image was exactly as I wanted with the prime I am using) and crop as I wanted. Therefore, I would be wasting a portion of the image captured on the sensor. As an example, the Blue Angels shot was done at 339mm longer than the 300mm and shorter than the 400mm I had been using.

I first used a zoom lens in the late 1960's; a 42-86mm Nikkor which belonged to the Navy. I loved shooting with it until I saw the proofs. The quality was so bad that I never picked up that lens again. It was a one-time use lens for every photographer in my command. However, today's top-line zoom lenses are far superior to that old "Coke Bottle" glass. Even the "lowly" 18-55mm kit lens give surprisingly good results if shot at around f/11 or so