UK: good London camera shops

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:32:48 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: 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.
:
: 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.

Gee, I thought the 135mm Nikkor lenses I owned for my SP snd F-2 were fine
portrait lenses. I didn't even have an 85 or a 105. But whilst I may be
considered to be living in your West, I'm considerably east of our West. ;^)

Bob

David J Taylor wrote:
"Joe Kotroczo" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/2012 00:58, Bruce wrote:
[]
Then you will already know to avoid Jessops. ;-)

Actually I didn't. Thanks for that.

Thanks for the info!

I've actually found Jessops to be quite helpful, and they used to match
Internet prices. I don't think they still do that, though. We have a
Jacobs almost next door to the Jessops, and they seem to have a better
range in stock.

I just bought a lens from Jessops because I couldn't find it cheaper
on-line (from a UK seller). I noticed too that the Jacobs shop next
door was selling it at the same price.



--
Chris Malcolm

I just bought a lens from Jessops because I couldn't find it cheaper
on-line (from a UK seller). I noticed too that the Jacobs shop next
door was selling it at the same price.

--
Chris Malcolm

So what's your new lens, Chris?

I find the service in both shops similar, although Jacobs has a more
up-market stock range. They let me try a £1000+ pair of Leitz binoculars,
and while they were definitely better, I ended up with the £30 half price
manager's special from Jessops! I got my 18-200mm Nikon from John Lewis,
mail order, and the 35mm f/1.8 from Jessops, mail order. Most recently I
was in Jacobs looking at the Panasonic micro-4/3 with 14-140mm, and
finding it not /that/ much smaller or lighter than my present Nikon 5000 +
18-200mm DSLR kit.

Cheers,
David

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Joe Kotroczo writes:
On 30/03/2012 14:04, J. Clarke wrote:

New digital, probably an EOS 60D with an 15-85mm. (Although someone
mentioned I should also look at the Sony A77 with the 16-50mm. Hmm...)

If you're shopping for an SLR don't look at the camera, look at the
system. Canon and Nikon both have very complete systems with a lot of
third-party support. Other manufacturers not so much. And if you're
not going to be using any other parts of the system then think very
carefully about why you're looking at an SLR in the first place.

Believe me, I've thought long and hard about this. Photography is an
important part of my job after all, even if not many people will ever
get to see the photos.

The only thing that annoys me about Canon is lack of GPS. But I can
work around that. The thing that intrigues me about the Sony is the
EVF. The thing that worries me about the Sony is low light
performance.

Do you really think that the Sony/Minolta system is lacking in
completeness to the extent that you would discourage people from
buying it?

I think it's ruled out of initial consideration by most serious
photographers for that reason.

I think the number of serious photographers who avoid Sony for that
reason is far outweighed by the number of less technically minded
photographers who avoid Sony because a serious photographer told them
that.

Photographing birds and ships in the local docks at the weekend I met
a Canon photographer who it turned out used to have a Sony Alpha DSLR,
but had changed to Canon two years ago because he had found it too
difficult to get extra lenses for the Sony. I asked what lenses he
found it difficult to get. Turned out what he meant was that when
visiting camera shops he noticed a lot more Canon and Nikon than Sony
lenses. He hadn't actually got round to trying to get any specific
lens. But a serious photographer advised him to shift to Canon because
when he wanted a new lens it would so much easier to get what he
wanted.

So what extra lenses had he got for his Canon? None yet, two years
after purchase he was still using the kit lens. He was surprised to
see me put a Sigma 8-16mm on my Sony. He had thought that third party
lens makers wouldn't have bothered making lenses for such a small
player as Sony.

A *few* people who know their needs very well, and are confident they're
stable, are very happy with it. And a lot of new people who haven't
gone through multiple system transitions to really understand what a
pain it is are buying it.

I know my needs well, but I keep extending them! So I know I'm not
stable. But I'm confident that between Tokina, Sigma, Samyang, Zeiss,
and Sony, not to mention the good old compatible Minolta lenses, I'll
be able to find whatever lenses my unstable photographic explorations
lead me towards. Except sports, but I'm pretty sure I'm not going to
want to develop the size of wallet and muscles required to field top
quality sports lenses :-)

But the most important reason for my starting with Sony several years
ago and sticking there is that I strongly suspected they'd make the
first and best transition away from the clockwork SLR heritage of
flapping mirrors etc.. IMHO that'll result in an important increase in
image quality and camera usability in diverse conditions, and quite
possibly while dropping the price compared to the clockwork
competition.

--
Chris Malcolm

Joe Kotroczo wrote:

I'd love to have GPS in-camera, but could work around that with a
separate GPS logger.

My smartphone has GPS. When I want a photographic GPS fix I simply
photograph the GPS display. The advantage of a separately controllable
GPS display is that I can adjust it to precisely what I want,
including when inside a building when GPS fails to work, or when the
ref I want is what I'm pointing the camera at, rather than where the
camera is.

--
Chris Malcolm

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"David J Taylor" wrote:
Most recently I
was in Jacobs looking at the Panasonic micro-4/3 with 14-140mm, and
finding it not /that/ much smaller or lighter than my present Nikon 5000
+
18-200mm DSLR kit.


You must have had your eyes shut:
http://camerasize.com/compare/#185,214

Add the lenses. Then consider that I would have to spend over £1000, and
likely gain nothing in high-ISO capability. The relatively small total
size and weight reduction doesn't currently justify the financial and
other losses.

David

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:56:37 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:32:48 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: : 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.
: :
: : 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.
:
: Gee, I thought the 135mm Nikkor lenses I owned for my SP snd F-2 were
: fine portrait lenses. I didn't even have an 85 or a 105.
:
:
: That's a pity, because the 105mm f/2.5 - originally for the
: rangefinder cameras but later adapted for the F mount - is to many
: people one of the finest portrait lenses ever made. And the 85mm
: f/1.4 for the F mount is to many other people one of the finest
: portrait lenses ever made, at least until Samyang came along.

Truthfully, I wasn't deep enough into photography in those days to have it
matter very much. I've learned more about photography (and taken far more
pictures) in the last eight years than in the previous 66.

: But there are no rules, so you can shoot "portraits" with anything you
: want, from an 8mm fisheye to a 1000mm mirror lens. Just don't expect
: the subject always to concur with your choice of focal length. :-)
:
:
: But whilst I may be considered to be living in your West,
: I'm considerably east of our West. ;^)
:
:
: That's one great advantage of living so close to the Prime Meridian -
: you don't tend to get your easts and wests mixed up. However, it does
: mean that most of the great European capitals - apart from London,
: Lisbon and Madrid - are in the "east". ;-)

Not to help you put yourself out on a limb, you understand, but did you mean
to leave out Dublin?

Bob

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
[]
The Panasonic lens is a whopping 100g lighter than the Nikkor (19%),
is 7mm smaller in diameter (10%) and 13mm shorter (13%). All of these
are substantial differences. Frankly, I doubt that you even made the
comparison.

Doubt away, then, I help the kit in my hands.

Perhaps you should just tell the truth and say you couldn't afford to
make the change. There is no shame in that. However, you should be
ashamed that you lied about the size and weight difference between the
cameras and lenses.

The difference was not as great as I had hoped for.

The difference in size and weight between the camera bodies is
substantial. The front view I linked to shows the least difference in
size, and even that is significant. Look at the view looking down on
the top plate and the G3 is *absolutely tiny* compared with the D5000.
The G3 weighs a mere 382g, a whopping 37% less than the D5000's 611g.

The difference in the lens sizes and weights is also substantial.

No, not /that/ substantial.

As for noise levels, you can compare them on DPReview.

So please spare us the bull**** about the differences being small. I
simply don't believe that anyone who has genuinely compared the two
camera lens combinations could make the ludicrous claims that you
have. But you do seem to make a habit of drawing conclusions and
giving advice based on equipment that you have never used, touched or
even seen.

You are becoming a serial offender, and it is a pathetic sight.

Others will have formed their own opinion about you.

As ever, you don't seem to realise that others may have a different
opinion to you, and that a different opinion is equally valid. I was not
giving advice, simply reporting my own conclusions after handling some
micro-4/3 kit. Your conclusions would undoubtedly be different, for
obvious reasons.

David

Bruce writes:

Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:32:48 +0100, Bruce wrote:
: 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.
:
: 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.

Gee, I thought the 135mm Nikkor lenses I owned for my SP snd F-2 were fine
portrait lenses. I didn't even have an 85 or a 105.


That's a pity, because the 105mm f/2.5 - originally for the
rangefinder cameras but later adapted for the F mount - is to many
people one of the finest portrait lenses ever made. And the 85mm
f/1.4 for the F mount is to many other people one of the finest
portrait lenses ever made, at least until Samyang came along.

I had the 105/2.8 from 1980 until a few years ago, when I finally sold
it. I never did warm to it. I can't nail down exactly why; I think it
was the combination of too long and too slow (I was coming off the Leitz
Summicron 90mm f/2, and had the Olyumpus 85 or 85 for a while in the
middle).

I now have the Nikon 85/1.8 AF, which is quite nice. It was nice on DX,
and it's nice on full-frame too. I did just add the 135/2 DC for more
reach.

But there are no rules, so you can shoot "portraits" with anything you
want, from an 8mm fisheye to a 1000mm mirror lens. Just don't expect
the subject always to concur with your choice of focal length. :-)

There are rules of thumb, there are heuristics, but there re no actual
rules.
--
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:
Bruce writes:
Robert Coe wrote:
Gee, I thought the 135mm Nikkor lenses I owned for my SP snd F-2 were fine
portrait lenses. I didn't even have an 85 or a 105.

That's a pity, because the 105mm f/2.5 - originally for the
rangefinder cameras but later adapted for the F mount - is to many
people one of the finest portrait lenses ever made. And the 85mm
f/1.4 for the F mount is to many other people one of the finest
portrait lenses ever made, at least until Samyang came along.

I had the 105/2.8 from 1980 until a few years ago, when I finally sold
it. I never did warm to it. I can't nail down exactly why; I think it
was the combination of too long and too slow (I was coming off the Leitz
Summicron 90mm f/2, and had the Olyumpus 85 or 85 for a while in the
middle).


I never warmed to it either. It has/had cult status but I'm not a
believer. Several examples of the 105mm f/2.5 have passed through my
hands, mostly through my habit of purchasing whole outfits and
breaking them up for sale, and I didn't try them all.

I personally preferred the Tamron 90mm f/2.5, but there were so many
great portrait lenses made from the 1970s onwards that it was
difficult to choose. I think I would probably select the Kiron 105mm
f/2.8 as the best for an SLR, and the Leica 90mm f/2.8 Summicron-M as
the best for a rangefinder, although I still have a lot of affection
for the 90mm f/4 Elmar-C and its spiritual successor, the 90mm f/2.8
Elmarit-M which is my current choice for M mount.


I now have the Nikon 85/1.8 AF, which is quite nice. It was nice on DX,
and it's nice on full-frame too. I did just add the 135/2 DC for more
reach.


The AF 85/1.8 was one of my first AF lens purchases with my F801 body.
It was a good all-rounder. Perhaps not the greatest portrait lens but
good enough for my use at that time. The manual focus 85mm f/1.8 or
f/2 (cannot recall which, could be both) had much smoother bokeh, but
the AF version was OK.

I'm currently enjoying the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 on my Panasonic G3 but
haven't yet used it (or any other m4/3 lens) professionally.

That's one of my latest acquisitions (I got the 14/2.5, the 45/1.8, and
a Rokinion 7.5/3.5 fisheye all at once), and I'm liking it a lot. For
angle of view it matches the 90/2 I liked so much, so that's probably
part of it.
--
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