UK: good London camera shops

Joe Kotroczo writes:

On 31/03/2012 01:13, Savageduck wrote:

(...)
I don't need much, a 24mm-70mm equivalent zoom, a 50mm equivalent prime,
great low light performance, a body that's big enough to hold firmly and
comfortably (bigger than a 600D body anyway). I almost never use a
flash. I'd love to have GPS in-camera, but could work around that with a
separate GPS logger.

May be more than you want to spend but look at a Nikon D3S. Add the GP-
1 GPS that fits in the hot shoe, and a couple of lenses, and every one
of your points is hit. It's a large body, I don't think anything on the
market has beaten the low light performance yet, has the GPS, if not in-
camera then on-camera, and the lenses you ask for are readily available
from Nikon and from several third-parties.

I use the GP-1 with my D300S and it does a pretty good job. It will
also work on all Nikon DSLRs from the D90 on up. In terms of
performance vs cost the D7000 is probably the choice for APS-C Nikons,
and the D700& D3S for full frame.

To be honest, I've pretty much ruled out Nikon purely on the grounds
that their system is too confusing. As far as I can tell, some lenses
work with some bodies but not with others, some bodies have an
autofocus motor, some haven't, and so on.

Nikon has far better backwards compatibility than Canon; that's kind-of
the source of the problem. Canon orphaned their old lens mount and
started over with EF in 198x, whatever year that was. Whereas I can
still mount 1960s Nikon lenses on my D700 (my oldest actual lens is one
I bought new in 1980).

Because of that, the compatibility table has to include all the old
weird things and all the special cases, so it looks complicated.

To a first approximation, here's how it really works: The
consumer-grade cameras don't support auto-focus except with AF-S lenses,
but manual focus works fine. The consumer-grade cameras don't support
auto-exposure with non-AF lenses, or metering, but they'll shoot fine.
The pro-sumer and up (D300, D700, D700, D3, D4) will AF with any AF lens
and meter with any lens. Mostly, the old prong-interface lenses need to
be AIed to mount safely on most cameras today.

The fact that you can't mount the original 21mm lens on the modern
cameras because it requires permanent mirror lock-up doesn't matter to
more than 3 people on the planet (that's about a 1960 lens).

(The compatibility table has to make it clear that the three unique
auto-focus lenses made for the F3 film body in the 1980s aren't AF in
the modern sense, too.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

"Ian" writes:

"Joe Kotroczo" wrote in message
...
On 31/03/2012 01:13, Savageduck wrote:

(...)
To be honest, I've pretty much ruled out Nikon purely on the grounds that
their system is too confusing. As far as I can tell, some lenses work with
some bodies but not with others, some bodies have an autofocus motor, some
haven't, and so on.

Hello.

The confusion with Nikon only occurs when you try to use old lenses on
modern bodies. If you're buying a new Nikon body and a new Nikon lens then
there's no problem.

That's not really true. The 135mm f/2 DC lens, for example, still
available new from Nikon, is NOT an AF-S, it requies the focus motor in
the camera. Admittedly, people buying the consumer models aren't THAT
likely to be buying that lens, but still.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 01/04/2012 02:34, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Joe writes:
(...)
To be honest, I've pretty much ruled out Nikon purely on the grounds
that their system is too confusing. As far as I can tell, some lenses
work with some bodies but not with others, some bodies have an
autofocus motor, some haven't, and so on.

Nikon has far better backwards compatibility than Canon; that's kind-of
the source of the problem.
(...)

But it's not just the lenses. A four number body is better than a two
number body, but less good than a three number body, which in turn is
less good than a one number body. Huh? But then you're told the D7000 is
really better than the D300s despite being marketed as being less good
than the D300s. Huh? And if you use the GPS unit, you have a cable
sticking out to the side of the camera?

Sorry, I've got nothing against Nikon as such, but I can't seem to warm
to them. Have to try them side by side in a shop I guess.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

In article , says...

On 01/04/2012 02:34, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Joe writes:
(...)
To be honest, I've pretty much ruled out Nikon purely on the grounds
that their system is too confusing. As far as I can tell, some lenses
work with some bodies but not with others, some bodies have an
autofocus motor, some haven't, and so on.

Nikon has far better backwards compatibility than Canon; that's kind-of
the source of the problem.
(...)

But it's not just the lenses. A four number body is better than a two
number body, but less good than a three number body, which in turn is
less good than a one number body. Huh? But then you're told the D7000 is
really better than the D300s despite being marketed as being less good
than the D300s. Huh?

Except when you're dealing with the entry level models, the Nikons are
more "different" than "better". Different models have different
features for different uses. The recently announced D800 has more
resolution than the D4 for example. The tradeoff is that the D4
maintains and may improve on the D3S low light performance, making it
preferable for sports, action, and press photography, while the D800
would be a better choice for studio photography where lack of light is
not an issue, but resolution can be. The D4 also has full body sealing
and other features that are useful in outdoor photography but a waste of
money in the studio. Neither is "better", they're just different.

As for your comments concerning the D300S vs D7000, first, the D300S is
a very slight update of a 2007 release, the D7000 is new for 2010, so
it's going to have better electronic performance just because technology
marches on, and second again it's a difference in target markets--the
D300S has environmental sealing, the D7000 does not. That doesn't make
it "better" but it does make it more suitable for some types of work.

And if you use the GPS unit, you have a cable
sticking out to the side of the camera?

Yep. If you hold this against Nikon you have to hold it against Canon
and Pentax and Samsung as well. And most other brands don't have it at
all. There is a bluetooth GPS solution available for Nikon that removes
the wire but it costs about as much as the wired receiver and that's
without the Bluetooth GPS so this doesn't seem like a particularly
attractive option to me.

Sorry, I've got nothing against Nikon as such, but I can't seem to
warm
to them. Have to try them side by side in a shop I guess.

Understand, I'm a Canon guy myself, so I don't have a dog in this hunt
but for the set of requirementes you specified, several Nikon models
seem like a good fit and the Sony doesn't.

To recap, what you say you want is a good sized body, good low light,
GPS, a 50mm prime, and a 24-70 zoom.

For low light, the best performers you're going to find are the Nikon
D3S and the new D4, the Canon EOS-1DX, the recently announced Canon EOS
5D Mark III, and the Pentax K-5, in more or less that order. The Nikons
and the 1DX seem to be out of your price range. The 5DMkIII (note, not
the MkII) is around 3K--don't know if that's in your range or not. The
Pentax is under 1K.

For size, if you like a large camera, again the D3/D4 and the 1DX win.
The 5D isn't tiny and is about an inch wider than the 600D which you say
is too small. The Pentax is the same size as the 600D.

All have GPS available. Nikon's solution goes in the hot shoe and uses
a cable. Canon's goes in the hot shoe on the 5D and plugs into the side
of the 1DX (they have two GPS recievers, specific to thos models) and on
those models does not require a cable. Pentax's solution also fits in
the hot shoe and does not require a cable.

Both Nikon and Canon have lenses in the range you want. Pentax is an
APS-C camera so you would want a 35mm and a 16-50 or so zoom to cover
the range you want. Pentax has several options in the 35mm vicinity
ranging cheap to rather pricey and a 16-50 f/2.8 that's IMO a bit
overpriced for the performance it delivers.

The size issue by the way can be addressed on most SLRs by adding a
battery grip.

I looked at all up system prices with the 2 lenses, GPS, and battery
grip where appropriate and the 5DMkIII comes in at about twice the Sony,
with the K-5 in the middle at about $1K more than the Sony and about
1700 less than the Canon (all in US dollars).

On 01/04/2012 19:19, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

(...)
Yep. If you hold this against Nikon you have to hold it against Canon
and Pentax and Samsung as well.
(...)

Oh, but I do. :-)

I'm actually quite surprised that Sony are the only ones offering a dSLR
body with fully integrated GPS. Even the EOS-1D X, which has a price tag
north of £5000 only has GPS via an accessory, for an additional £280!
Which IMO is taking the ****, since they sell a compact, the SX230, with
integrated GPS for £200.

Sorry, I've got nothing against Nikon as such, but I can't seem to
warm
to them. Have to try them side by side in a shop I guess.

Understand, I'm a Canon guy myself, so I don't have a dog in this hunt
but for the set of requirementes you specified, several Nikon models
seem like a good fit and the Sony doesn't.

To recap, what you say you want is a good sized body, good low light,
GPS, a 50mm prime, and a 24-70 zoom.

For low light, the best performers you're going to find are the Nikon
D3S and the new D4, the Canon EOS-1DX, the recently announced Canon EOS
5D Mark III, and the Pentax K-5, in more or less that order. The Nikons
and the 1DX seem to be out of your price range. The 5DMkIII (note, not
the MkII) is around 3K--don't know if that's in your range or not. The
Pentax is under 1K.

As I said: before we started this discussion I was more or less set on
getting an EOS 60D with a 15-85mm, which would come to around £1350 if
bought new. I've seen them second-hand for £1100. And I was thinking of
getting the Sigma 30mm at a later date. As for the GPS, not sure if I
should get a Jobo PhotoGPS or just a keychain GPS logger. For
comparison, the 7D with the same lens (which is a kit lens with the 7D,
but not the 60D) would be just shy of £1700, which I would consider as
being above my budget.

The "larger body than a 600D" is more about being able to grip it
comfortably and securely than the size of the body itself. So I guess I
should have said "body with a large-ish handgrip" or something. I don't
think I'm a fan of battery grips, I think they would only be useful if I
held the camera vertically. Which I don't very often.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

Joe Kotroczo writes:

On 01/04/2012 02:34, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Joe writes:
(...)
To be honest, I've pretty much ruled out Nikon purely on the grounds
that their system is too confusing. As far as I can tell, some lenses
work with some bodies but not with others, some bodies have an
autofocus motor, some haven't, and so on.

Nikon has far better backwards compatibility than Canon; that's kind-of
the source of the problem.
(...)

But it's not just the lenses. A four number body is better than a two
number body, but less good than a three number body, which in turn is
less good than a one number body. Huh? But then you're told the D7000
is really better than the D300s despite being marketed as being less
good than the D300s. Huh? And if you use the GPS unit, you have a
cable sticking out to the side of the camera?

Most people wouldn't agree. Certainly the 3000 and 5000 series are
low-level consumer bodies. The 7000 could arguably be an anomaly, but
lacks many important features present on the D300. Also the D300 has
been updated once and would be expected to be at the end of its
lifespan, so it's less surprising that the 7000 is nipping at its
heels.

Sorry, I've got nothing against Nikon as such, but I can't seem to
warm to them. Have to try them side by side in a shop I guess.

One pro I know shooting Canon for his living really wishes he could
afford to switch to Nikon, because he finds the Canon UI really slow and
hard to work with. Since his commercial work is largely product in
studio, and models in studio and in the field (i.e. people cooperating
with him), the slowness doesn't cause enough actual problem to be worth
the cost of switching though (he has a 5D and a 5DII and quite a few
lenses that are expensive). But UI is mostly preference, of course.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Bruce writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
"Ian" writes:
The confusion with Nikon only occurs when you try to use old lenses on
modern bodies. If you're buying a new Nikon body and a new Nikon lens then
there's no problem.

That's not really true. The 135mm f/2 DC lens, for example, still
available new from Nikon, is NOT an AF-S, it requies the focus motor in
the camera. Admittedly, people buying the consumer models aren't THAT
likely to be buying that lens, but still.


It is quite astonishing that Nikon hasn't yet sold all the copies of
that lens. It was a limited production item and as far as I know the
last batch was made no later than 2004, possibly earlier.

High-end lenses tend to be like that.

It is a beautiful lens. I bought mine (used) very cheaply because the
market for it is very limited, especially in the West. It would make
an ideal portrait lens but for the focal length. 135mm might be
Japan's first choice for portraiture on 35mm film and FX digital but
that certainly isn't the case in the West, where something between
85mm and 105mm is strongly preferred. So the 135mm DC is something of
an oddity in the West, having optical characteristics (and changeable
ones at that) which are ideally suited to portraiture but the wrong
focal length.

Now I'm jealous; I've been watching for a cheap copy for months, and
nothing vaguely close turned up. New was only a couple of hundred more
than the best used price I could find (and new comes with the Nikon USA
5-year warranty).

I got it for portraits, and as a general-pupose ultra-fast telephoto,
myself. Especially in studio, getting back further than normal seems to
produce better results for me.

There was a 105mm version - presumably aimed at Western markets - but
it was not remotely as good as the 135mm. It still had the same
Defocus Control feature but its basic optical performance was a long
way behind that of the 135mm, making it quite an ordinary lens.

And from my time with the 105/2.5 (AIS) I know I don't like that focal
length for much of anything.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Joe Kotroczo wrote:
On 01/04/2012 19:19, J. Clarke wrote:
In , says...

(...)
Yep. If you hold this against Nikon you have to hold it against Canon
and Pentax and Samsung as well.
(...)

Oh, but I do. :-)

I'm actually quite surprised that Sony are the only ones offering a dSLR
body with fully integrated GPS.

GPS only works really well if you have a clear view of the sky. For a
lot of professional use it'd need a GPS antenna outside the
vehicle/aircraft/building/etc. (Why do you want GPS in a building?
Because you want to know exactly what time it is.) Integrated GPS is
a whole lot less general-purpose than an interface to a remote GPS
unit.

Andrew.

Bruce writes:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Bruce writes:
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
That's not really true. The 135mm f/2 DC lens, for example, still
available new from Nikon, is NOT an AF-S, it requies the focus motor in
the camera. Admittedly, people buying the consumer models aren't THAT
likely to be buying that lens, but still.


It is quite astonishing that Nikon hasn't yet sold all the copies of
that lens. It was a limited production item and as far as I know the
last batch was made no later than 2004, possibly earlier.

High-end lenses tend to be like that.


Especially high end lenses that don't sell well. :-(


It is a beautiful lens. I bought mine (used) very cheaply because the
market for it is very limited, especially in the West. It would make
an ideal portrait lens but for the focal length. 135mm might be
Japan's first choice for portraiture on 35mm film and FX digital but
that certainly isn't the case in the West, where something between
85mm and 105mm is strongly preferred. So the 135mm DC is something of
an oddity in the West, having optical characteristics (and changeable
ones at that) which are ideally suited to portraiture but the wrong
focal length.

Now I'm jealous; I've been watching for a cheap copy for months, and
nothing vaguely close turned up. New was only a couple of hundred more
than the best used price I could find (and new comes with the Nikon USA
5-year warranty).


Don't be jealous. I sold it after only a few months for slightly less
than I paid for it. :-(

It was a nice toy but expensive and inconvenient to experiment with on
film. I bought and sold it before I owned a digital SLR.

Yeah, the DC part is a complication I haven't even dipped into yet.

I got it for portraits, and as a general-pupose ultra-fast telephoto,
myself. Especially in studio, getting back further than normal seems to
produce better results for me.


If it is about pleasing the sitter, the conventional focal length
range works best for most people. But if it is about what *you* want
to shoot, you can use any focal length you want. I have seen
portraits taken at a range of focal lengths that were interesting and
pleasing to the eye, but may not have had such a warm reception from
the sitter.

I find myself using the 70-200 a lot for that kind of thing now, with
good reports from clients and models and portrait subjects. At least if
it's that kind of portrait.

I like an even longer focal length for environmental portraits. The
180mm f/2.8 Nikkor was about right. I get good results with a Leica
90mm f/2.8 Elmarit-M on m4/3. It is also a fine classic portrait lens
on the M9P, but if anything it is slightly bettered by the Olympus
45mm f/1.8 on m4/3, which is probably my all-time favourite despite
being ridiculously cheap.

I easily believe out towards 200mm-equiv, sure. I do like the M43
45/1.8, it's nice for everything from cats on up.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

In article , says...

Joe Kotroczo writes:

On 01/04/2012 02:34, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Joe writes:
(...)
To be honest, I've pretty much ruled out Nikon purely on the grounds
that their system is too confusing. As far as I can tell, some lenses
work with some bodies but not with others, some bodies have an
autofocus motor, some haven't, and so on.

Nikon has far better backwards compatibility than Canon; that's kind-of
the source of the problem.
(...)

But it's not just the lenses. A four number body is better than a two
number body, but less good than a three number body, which in turn is
less good than a one number body. Huh? But then you're told the D7000
is really better than the D300s despite being marketed as being less
good than the D300s. Huh? And if you use the GPS unit, you have a
cable sticking out to the side of the camera?

Most people wouldn't agree. Certainly the 3000 and 5000 series are
low-level consumer bodies. The 7000 could arguably be an anomaly, but
lacks many important features present on the D300. Also the D300 has
been updated once and would be expected to be at the end of its
lifespan, so it's less surprising that the 7000 is nipping at its
heels.

Sorry, I've got nothing against Nikon as such, but I can't seem to
warm to them. Have to try them side by side in a shop I guess.

One pro I know shooting Canon for his living really wishes he could
afford to switch to Nikon, because he finds the Canon UI really slow and
hard to work with. Since his commercial work is largely product in
studio, and models in studio and in the field (i.e. people cooperating
with him), the slowness doesn't cause enough actual problem to be worth
the cost of switching though (he has a 5D and a 5DII and quite a few
lenses that are expensive). But UI is mostly preference, of course.

I find the master/slave flash on a Canon to be problematical myself--if
I'd realized going in how finicky it was I'd have waited for the D200.
Too late now and I've got radio triggers paid for, but it wouild have
been nice not to have needed them.