UK: good London camera shops

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
"Ian" wrote in message
...


I would agree that the actual kit is more important than the brand, and
that both manufacturers offer systems covering a wide range of needs.
Arguably, the most important link in the chain is the photographer!

Cheers,
David
Hello again David.

Actually, I can take lousy photos with Canon, Nikon, Minolta and hem, hem,
Nokia.

I've used both the Canon 50D and the Nikon D5100. I can find my way around
the menu/options/commands structure of the 50D more easily than the
equivalent on the D5100. It's personal preference. It's nice to have the
choice.
Reminds me of the film SLRs and manual focusing lenses. Canon and Nikon
focusing rings worked in opposite senses. I could learn to live with either.

Kindest regards, Ian.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Ian" wrote:
Thinking back to the announcement of the EF mount, Canon explained that
they'd looked at making the FD mount into an autofocus mount and decided
it
was not practical. This is complete nonsense.

Canon *did* make an autofocus version of the FD mount. The camera
body was the T80 which was based on the design of the T70 and was
introduced in 1985. It was offered with three AF lenses (50mm f/1.8,
35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and 75-200mm f/4.5) which had integral AF motors.

The T80 could also accept normal FD lenses, obviously without AF, and
the AF lenses could be used on all other Canon bodies with the FD
mount, also obviously without AF.

The "T80 system" was a commercial failure and sold only a fraction of
the expected numbers. Canon produced far too many cameras and lenses.
The camera bodies were sold off fairly quickly at deeply discounted
prices (they offered good value as cheap T70 equivalents) but the
lenses lingered on store and warehouse shelves for several years
afterwards.

The AF lenses were bulky and cumbersome to use because the motors used
were not of the ring type as used in the later EOS system. Autofocus
performance was slow and uncertain.

Hello.

I remember the T80 and its lenses. Canon was laughed at by some people for
marketing lenses with bumps on them. SLR owners were used to manual focus
and the T80's autofocus was nothing special or helpful. Canon went away,
decided to start with a clean sheet of paper and devised the EF lenses with
a motor in each lens. This, too, was laughed at because it was clearly silly
to put a motor in each lens rather than put a motor in the body. Nikon put
motors in its body. The world saw and tried the EF lenses and liked them. It
has to be noted that one Canon lens in particular did wonders for its
popularity with the press and that was the 35 - 350mm lens.

(History does repeat itself. Sony have the translucent mirror DSLR.
Canon had similar mirrors back in the 1960s.)

Regards, Ian.

Hello again David.

Actually, I can take lousy photos with Canon, Nikon, Minolta and hem,
hem, Nokia.

I know just what you mean!

I've used both the Canon 50D and the Nikon D5100. I can find my way
around the menu/options/commands structure of the 50D more easily than
the equivalent on the D5100. It's personal preference. It's nice to have
the choice.
Reminds me of the film SLRs and manual focusing lenses. Canon and Nikon
focusing rings worked in opposite senses. I could learn to live with
either.

Kindest regards, Ian.

When buying my first DSLR I have no existing lenses, so I compared Canon
and Nikon in the shop, and found I preferred the Nikon system. When
buying new kit, I also try it out wearing gloves, as I have an interest in
Scandinavia including Winter visits (and Edinburgh all the year round
G), so being able to operate a camera while wearing gloves is important.
Being familiar with the camera to minimise any time taken to change
settings helps me get pictures before they are gone.

Cheers,
David

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"Ian" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
. ..
"Ian" wrote:
Thinking back to the announcement of the EF mount, Canon explained that
they'd looked at making the FD mount into an autofocus mount and decided
it
was not practical. This is complete nonsense.

Canon *did* make an autofocus version of the FD mount. The camera
body was the T80 which was based on the design of the T70 and was
introduced in 1985. It was offered with three AF lenses (50mm f/1.8,
35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and 75-200mm f/4.5) which had integral AF motors.

The T80 could also accept normal FD lenses, obviously without AF, and
the AF lenses could be used on all other Canon bodies with the FD
mount, also obviously without AF.

The "T80 system" was a commercial failure and sold only a fraction of
the expected numbers. Canon produced far too many cameras and lenses.
The camera bodies were sold off fairly quickly at deeply discounted
prices (they offered good value as cheap T70 equivalents) but the
lenses lingered on store and warehouse shelves for several years
afterwards.

The AF lenses were bulky and cumbersome to use because the motors used
were not of the ring type as used in the later EOS system. Autofocus
performance was slow and uncertain.

Hello.

I remember the T80 and its lenses.


What a pity you had a memory lapse when drafting your previous post.

Ah - you have to remember that autofocus wasn't available on all FD lenses.
The T80 wasn't on sale for a long time nor was it followed by any other FD
body.

Not sure if the FD autofocus lenses were useable on all the FD bodies or
only on the T80. The FD system couldn't be regarded as an autofocus system.


Regards, Ian.

Hello folks.

There's been postings criticising Canon for changing their lens mount (FD to
EF / EF-S in the 1980s).

I have a recollection that Pextax and Praktica also changed their lens
mounts (screw mount to bayonet mount in both cases).

Anyone remember if this was badly received by their users?
Anyone remember other brands which changed their lens mount?


Regards, Ian.

David J Taylor wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
David J Taylor wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

[]
Canon have similar issues with their full-frame and APS-C lenses.

Actually, no.

There's only EF and EF-S.

Any EOS camera can use EF.
Any 1.6x crop[1] can also use EF-S.

Simple as that.

Thanks. With Nikon, all current lenses fit on all current cameras,

Please define "current lenses" and "current cameras".

You know perfectly well what I mean.

Last 3 years, last 5 years, last 7 years? Less? More?


although some older lenses have some restrictions. You can use lenses
right from the 1960s with Nikon, but that's not true with Canon.

With a converter you can use Nikon lenses right from the 1960s
with Canon-cameras. And you can even meter with them.

You know that Canon changed their mount, preventing the direct use of
older lenses on current cameras.

They did the right thing, throwing away the old ballast and
starting over with the knowledge they had gained. That was in
1987, a full quarter century ago.

Does your "current lenses" and "current cameras" go back 25 years?
Thought so.


-Wolfgang

nospam wrote:
In article , Bruce

AI lenses were made from 1977. By 1979, all new Nikkors were AI. So
your claim about being able to "use lenses from day 1 of the Nikon
system" which was some time in 1959 is wrong by 20 years.

Is there no end to your giving incorrect advice?

his advice is not completely incorrect. it just needs a little further
clarification.

1 + 1 == 0. (no. not 10. 0.)

Not completely incorrect, it just needs a little further
clarification.

-Wolfgang

nospam wrote:
In article , Ian

I've bought both Canon and Nikon second-hand lenses. Canon lenses aren't a
problem - it is easy to remember that EF-S lenses only fit APS-C bodies
(though I've read of mods to enable these lenses to fit onto full-frame and
film bodies). With Nikon the customer has to be more careful if they want
the lens to maintain all the shooting and focus modes.

not really.

the difference is that canon users are limited to autofocus lenses
only.

nikon users can use all autofocus lenses and almost all manual focus
lenses. higher end nikon cameras offer more features with older lenses
than lower end (no surprise there).

You can adapt Nikon lenses to EOS cameras. Then you have all
the manual focus lenses you want, fresh from Nikon. So
Canonistas can use Canon's and Nikon's lenses ... even more
choice than Nikon.

And Canon cameras will actually meter with all these lenses.

Personally, having used both Canon and Nikon, I find that I can take the
photos I want with either make. My oldest lens is around five years old and
my oldest body is around three years old so compatibility problems are not
an issue for me.

most people don't have older lenses so none of this even matters.

"most people" never buy any other lens, or maybe a superzoom lens.
But there are some people that actually use real lenses on real
cameras.

-Wolfgang

In article , Ian
wrote:

There's been postings criticising Canon for changing their lens mount (FD to
EF / EF-S in the 1980s).

I have a recollection that Pextax and Praktica also changed their lens
mounts (screw mount to bayonet mount in both cases).

pentax changed from the m42 screw mount to k-mount bayonet *long* ago.

it didn't change when they added autofocus, which is what drove some
companies to change their mount. old k-mount lenses still work.

Anyone remember if this was badly received by their users?

no, because the bayonet is worlds better than screw mount, and there's
an adapter that works quite well (still does too).

Anyone remember other brands which changed their lens mount?

minolta.

"Ian" wrote in message ...

Hello folks.

There's been postings criticising Canon for changing their lens mount (FD to
EF / EF-S in the 1980s).

I have a recollection that Pextax and Praktica also changed their lens
mounts (screw mount to bayonet mount in both cases).

Anyone remember if this was badly received by their users?
Anyone remember other brands which changed their lens mount?


Regards, Ian.