Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > UK: good London camera shops

Reply
Thread Tools

UK: good London camera shops

 
 
Whisky-dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2012
On Apr 3, 3:17*pm, Chris Malcolm <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > Joe Kotroczo <(E-Mail Removed)> 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 lotof
> >>> 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.


That does make sense and can also be a valid reason.
My first camera was a Praktica L because of the cheap and avaiilbe
lenses
in M42.
My next major update was to go to canon teh AE1 and A1 one of teh
reasons
were the avilibility of lenes and other stuff gave me the impression
that canon
were here to stay unlike Praktica (I had an EE2 at the time).
Also people at the local camera club I joined also had canon, nikon,
Olmypus etc...

I never really liked the nikons of the time they seemed heavy and very
expensive compared
to the 'new' electronic canon range and as others had lenes they said
I could borrow,
it made sense to go with canon rather than others at the time.

Today I still like canon, I don;t know anyone with a Nikon, I know 2
close friends with canons.
Reminds me of the days in software whrre I had a mac and everyones
lese had 'free' games for the PC

I'd only advise someone buy a Sony if they really knew what they
wanted and understood
what they were looking for or it was significantly cheaper.


> 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.


That is a valid point, same goes for other additions.
The idea of expansion of a system is a good thing to consider.

>
> So what extra lenses had he got for his Canon? None yet, two years
> after purchase he was still using the kit lens.


maybe the kit lens is good enough for what he wants to do.

> 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.


True, but I'd certainly like a choice other than sigma if I wanted
another lens.
I don;t think you get quite the choice with a Sony body as you do with
Nikon or canon body.
Not that I've even been able to afford the lenses I most wanted, but
at least I could dream
in a semi realistic way



>
> > 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


I dremats of those musromm colour canon lenes at sports grounds but
have little intrest in sports,
I wanted them for astro photography and wild life, both prety
impractical for me.

>
> 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.


I'll wait until that happens, but I don;t rate somy as highly as I
used to.
A lot of friends have had faliures with sony dvd equipment and even
their TVs aren't as good as they were.
maybe managment is to blame. My last two TVs have been sony the 24"
CRT still works, brought in 1988.
Another 28" trintiton CRT given to me secondhand 6 years ago still
works and the picture quality still seems better than
a lot of low-mid range LCDs/plasmas ... so I've yet to upgrade, but
I'm betting it won;t be sony.

LG or samsung would be my current choice for TVs and I might need to
get one soon as my 28" sony
is analogue{1] with 2 scart sockets and no HDMI or SD card or HD 3D
or widescreen or internet ready.



[1] UK going over to digital this month, switching analogue off.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2012
"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2012
"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2012
"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> "David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.



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.


>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.



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 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.

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

So please spare us the bullshit 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.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Coe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:56:37 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:32:48 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
[]
> 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 bullshit 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

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:56:37 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>: 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?



How could I forget Dublin? Mea Culpa.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 12:32:48 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> 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://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2012
Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> 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, (E-Mail Removed); http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT - London camera shops (UK) Quincy Fuscienne Digital Photography 4 11-10-2004 08:50 AM
Photo shops in central London Kurt Sorensen Digital Photography 2 09-28-2004 06:16 AM
Looking for good&cheap camera shops in Chicago area NR Digital Photography 4 01-22-2004 07:07 AM
Good camera shops in Central London Myles Digital Photography 3 09-09-2003 04:01 PM
Know any good Binoculars shops in/near LONDON, UK? (for quality binoculars) Shiperton Henethe Digital Photography 37 08-18-2003 12:50 PM



Advertisments