Bangkok

[BernardLanguillier]

Dear all,

I am just back from a few days in Bangkok. Work was the main thing, but I could find some time to take the D3 and 24-70 f2.8 to some of the backstreets.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlangui...57603844526789/

It was my first time in Bangkok, and I decided to go with the flow. The city is amazing, exhausting and plain beautiful in its daily life energy and colors.

Cheers,
Bernard

[francois]

Dear all,

I am just back from a few days in Bangkok. Work was the main thing, but I could find some time to take the D3 and 24-70 f2.8 to some of the backstreets.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlangui...57603844526789/

It was my first time in Bangkok, and I decided to go with the flow. The city is amazing, exhausting and plain beautiful in its daily life energy and colors.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171971\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
Another great and colorful serie! Thanks for sharing.

[DarkPenguin]

Without Ray's transvestites it just doesn't look like the same place.

Nice work as always, Bernard.

[Ray]

Without Ray's transvestites it just doesn't look like the same place.

Nice work as always, Bernard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171994\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I got told off tonight for excessive use of flash at a place called Calypso. Apparently it was hurting the ladies' eyes, so I spent most of the show experimenting with some blurry shots at ISO 3200 to 25,600. Maybe I'll find something interesting there.

I just arrived in Bangkok this morning, Bernard. Pity we couldn't meet up and compare D3/5D noise levels   .

Bangkok is a fascinating city. Chaotic, colorful, exotic and very cosmopolitan. The city even boasts an opera company that recently gave performances of Wagner's complete Ring cycle.

Unfortunately, I'll be here for just a couple of days before returning to Australia.

[mike397x]

Bernard,
Really great images,......as usual.

I especially like the red brick stair case shot...did you take that in the "Anient City",or Sukhothai?


Mike

[BernardLanguillier]

I especially like the red brick stair case shot...did you take that in the "Anient City",or Sukhothai?
Mike
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172031\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Mike,

No, that was taken in Ayuthaya, about 2 hours away by train North of BKK.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Without Ray's transvestites it just doesn't look like the same place.

Nice work as always, Bernard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171994\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I thought I saw him in a bar, but it seems that he only arrived this morning...

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

I just arrived in Bangkok this morning, Bernard. Pity we couldn't meet up and compare D3/5D noise levels   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're lucky Ray, such a comparison would have ruined your stay!

Bangkok is a fascinating city. Chaotic, colorful, exotic and very cosmopolitan.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172003\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yep, very interesting indeed.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard,
Another great and colorful serie! Thanks for sharing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=171977\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the kind words Francois.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

You're lucky Ray, such a comparison would have ruined your stay!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
Any disappointment discovering that my 5D wasn't even nearly up to the low noise standard of the D3, would be completely offset by the certain knowledge that Nikon had made real and significant improvements in this area and by the consequent pleasant expectation that Canon would follow suit in its future upgrades.  

The issue for me really is, which is it; a 2 stop improvement or a 1/2 stop improvement? Also, I didn't have time to compare noise levels in 12 bit as opposed to 14 bit mode. This is another area of uncertainty. Some reports on the net claim there's no discernible difference in shadow noise between 12 bit and 14 bit.

[BernardLanguillier]

Also, I didn't have time to compare noise levels in 12 bit as opposed to 14 bit mode. This is another area of uncertainty. Some reports on the net claim there's no discernible difference in shadow noise between 12 bit and 14 bit.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172147\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And some other claim that they see a one stop improvement... go figure. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

And some other claim that they see a one stop improvement... go figure. :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Okay! I'll try to figure   . Nikon owners have been a bit despondent for quite a while because Canon DSLRs have traditionally had significantly less noise at high ISO.

Now that Nikon have at least caught up in the noise department and apparently overtaken Canon to some small degree, there is a compensatory jubilation taking place which involves a certain degree of exaggeration.

Some Canon owners are also happy to go along with the exaggeration because they think it will put extra pressure on Canon to take the lead again with its own leap forward in the noise department.

I get the impression that astronomers are of the opinion that the apparent lower noise of the D3 at high ISO is due largely to in-camera noise reduction which alters the RAW image and of course alters data.

[BernardLanguillier]

Okay! I'll try to figure   . Nikon owners have been a bit despondent for quite a while because Canon DSLRs have traditionally had significantly less noise at high ISO.

Now that Nikon have at least caught up in the noise department and apparently overtaken Canon to some small degree, there is a compensatory jubilation taking place which involves a certain degree of exaggeration.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172191\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, maybe.

Many Nikon users, including myself, have always said that high ISO noise is not that important in the first place. I still feel that way today now that I own a D3.

I see the better high ISO of the D3 as one additional feature, rather less important than good Auto ISO capability for instance.

As I said many times, the most significant progress made by Nikon when they released their new products end of last year was in their new pro lenses, not in the body. That is what convinced my to stay with Nikon.

Canon had lower noise bodies already, and it was obvious that Nikon would do the same soon, but no brand had managed so far to release convincing wide zoom lenses for FF and there was no obvious proof that it could be done technologically. Now we know and that is where my money goes.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

Canon had lower noise bodies already, and it was obvious that Nikon would do the same soon, but no brand had managed so far to release convincing wide zoom lenses for FF and there was no obvious proof that it could be done technologically. Now we know and that is where my money goes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172331\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
I have to agree there in principle, although I've had no direct experience of Nikon wide angle lenses. My best wide angle lens is still my Sigma 15-30. I find it very troublesome in general to find a good lens. I was lucky with the Sigma. I had nothing to compare it with except a Canon 16-35 in the store. The Sigma appeared at least as sharp and was also cheaper, but I couldn't compare FF edges because I was using a D60 to test the lenses. However, the edges have proved to be reasonably good on my 5D.

I recently tested the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS here in Bangkok. It's sharp in the centre. Quite sharp even at f2.8 but at wide apertures there's significant resolution fall-off towards the edges. At the edges there's no comparison with my Sigma 15-30 at any  largish aperture. The Sigma is designed for FF 35mm. Comparing say 1/4 of the frame next to the short edge at f3.5, the difference between the two lenses is so great it's just ridiculous, yet in the centre the differences seem quite marginal with the EF-S lens being perhaps slightly sharper.

Anyway, we're getting off topic   . I don't suppose you had time to visit Muang Boran (or Ancient City) about an hour's drive outside Bangkok, did you? For those who have limited time and who are perhaps a bit fed up with the usual temple tours, this place is just amazing. On a large tract of land, a city of temples has been built covering every period of Thai history. They are faithful reconstructions and some are not full size, but the attention to detail is just amazing and you get to see complete restorations of many temples which are now little more than a pile of rubble at there original location. You can wander around at leisure on a bicycle, on sealed roads. Very relaxing and you get plenty of time to set up your tripod   .

[BernardLanguillier]

I don't suppose you had time to visit Muang Boran (or Ancient City) about an hour's drive outside Bangkok, did you? For those who have limited time and who are perhaps a bit fed up with the usual temple tours, this place is just amazing. On a large tract of land, a city of temples has been built covering every period of Thai history.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, I didn't. I thought about going, but ended up staying in BKK another day.

We visited Ayuthaya though, pretty nice as well.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

At the edges there's no comparison with my Sigma 15-30 at any  largish aperture. The Sigma is designed for FF 35mm. Comparing say 1/4 of the frame next to the short edge at f3.5, the difference between the two lenses is so great it's just ridiculous, yet in the centre the differences seem quite marginal with the EF-S lens being perhaps slightly sharper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just for the record, I'll have to correct that statement. I was apparently comparing the 17-55 at full aperture (f2. with the 24-105 at full aperture (f4) and 24mm, and depth of focus issues might have come into play.

Having spent more time checking my test images, the edge performance at 17mm and f2.8 compares very favourably with the Sigma at 17mm and f3.5 (its maximum aperture). In fact despite the Sigma being designed for FF 35mm this EF-S lens at f3.5 has the edge (at the edges), but at f2.8 it's apparently not as sharp as the Sigma at f3.5.

This creates a dilemma. The main attractions of the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS are its wide maximum aperture and IS. However, if the lens is noticeably softer at that maximum aperture, one might prefer to stop down at least half a stop, thus removing one major advantage compared with a lens like the Sigma 15-30. There are other advantages though; less bulk, weight and a longer reach.

I think I might have to do further tests.

[BernardLanguillier]

I think I might have to do further tests.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Or you could also stop being a lens tester and become more of lens user with Nikon gear that works per the specs?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

Or you could also stop being a lens tester and become more of lens user with Nikon gear that works per the specs?

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172675\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
What specs are these you are referring to?  The only specs I see on lenses (Nikon or Canon) relate to factors such as F stop range, focal length, IS capability, waterproofing and so on   .

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard,
What specs are these you are referring to?  The only specs I see on lenses (Nikon or Canon) relate to factors such as F stop range, focal length, IS capability, waterproofing and so on   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You know what I mean Ray... I am talking about lenses that differ significantly from the bottom of a coke bottle.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Ray]

You know what I mean Ray... I am talking about lenses that differ significantly from the bottom of a coke bottle.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=172941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And how do you find out unless you test them, Bernard? Having looked at the link to the Nikkor 14-24/F2.8 in Michael's 'Reading Tea leaves' article, I'm very impressed with that lens. I'd like one. But someone tested it first before the glowing reports came out and it's probably still not known how consistently good those results are from copy to copy.

I always prefer to test my lenses, eventually if not at the time of making a purchasing decision, because I think it's important to know the strengths and weaknesses of one's lenses. 'Know thy lenses' is my motto   .