THE 2025 PHOTONIQUE BLOG -

THE MERCANTILE HOTEL IS ABOUT TO REOPEN AND THE EXTENSION AND RESTORATION APPEARS TO BE COMPLETE

April 18, 2025 by infomatique

PHOTOGRAPHED 13 APRIL 2025

The Mercantile Hotel, Dame Street: A Review of Recent Redevelopment, Historical Evolution, and Ownership Changes

The Mercantile Hotel, prominently situated at 28 Dame Street in Dublin’s city centre, is a well-known landmark within the bustling commercial, retail, and entertainment district. Its strategic location offers easy access to Grafton Street and the vibrant nightlife of Temple Bar. This analysis examines the hotel, focusing on its recently completed extension and restoration, the structures demolished to facilitate this work, its historical development since its establishment in 1835, and changes in its ownership. Given its long-standing presence in Dublin’s urban landscape, the Mercantile Hotel’s recent significant transformation merits a detailed review of its evolution.

The consistent emphasis across various sources on the hotel’s central location highlights its enduring importance to Dublin’s social and economic fabric. Having served the city since 1835 signifies a deep historical connection to the area’s development. The extensive renovations, following a five-year closure, suggest a substantial reinvestment and a likely strategic repositioning within Dublin’s competitive hospitality market. This prolonged closure strongly indicates that the project involved significant structural modifications, including the extension, and a complete overhaul of the hotel’s amenities and design, which would have undoubtedly had economic consequences for the hotel and potentially surrounding businesses.

The fully revamped Mercantile Hotel has now reopened, or is about to reopen, after a comprehensive five-year renovation. A significant aspect of this redevelopment is the substantial increase in its accommodation capacity, now offering 105 bedrooms – a remarkable 275% rise from its previous 28 rooms. This expansion was achieved through a new rear extension and the addition of an extra floor to the existing structure. The project strongly emphasised both this expansion and the preservation of the hotel’s architectural heritage through a significant conservation and redevelopment initiative. This included the meticulous refurbishment of the original street-facing façades and the careful restoration of traditional sash windows, key features of Georgian architecture. Furthermore, modern alterations that were unsympathetic to the building’s original style were removed to reveal its authentic Georgian character. The new design is described as a harmonious blend of “Georgian elegance meets contemporary Dublin”, drawing inspiration from Dublin’s 19th-century commercial and exploratory past to create a fresh and appealing atmosphere. The revitalised hotel also features new amenities, including a restaurant with a menu curated by the renowned chef Stephen Gibson, and the addition of “Café28”, suggesting a new or significantly upgraded café space. The reopening has also had a positive economic impact, creating 80 new jobs within Dublin’s hospitality sector. The key entities involved in this extensive refurbishment project include The Mercantile Group (the client and operator), Adston Construction (likely the main contractor), Michael Fitzpatrick Architects (responsible for the architectural design and potentially conservation aspects), and Millimetre Design (overseeing the interior design).

The significant increase in bedroom capacity and the addition of both a rear extension and an entire floor strongly suggest a considerable expansion of the hotel’s physical footprint, potentially necessitating the acquisition of adjacent properties or the presence of substantial undeveloped space. The deliberate combination of Georgian architectural elements with contemporary design reflects a strategic approach to appeal to a wide range of guests, respecting the building’s historical significance while providing modern comforts. The engagement of specialised architectural and design firms indicates a professional and likely high-quality execution of the renovation and extension project.

Planning documentation identifies the development site as Nos. 24-28 Dame Street, encompassing both The Mercantile Hotel (Nos. 26-28) and the adjacent Dame House (Nos. 24-25). Permission was granted for the “partial demolition of existing structure (internal and external)”. This included the removal of the existing 5th-floor mansard roof of the Mercantile Hotel to facilitate the construction of a new amalgamated mansard roof and a set-back 6th floor for both buildings. Planning application 3278/21, an amendment to the original permission, further detailed the scope of demolition, including work at the basement and ground floors, removal of the first-floor roof, and alterations to the southern and western external walls. Notably, this amendment also included the demolition of the rear of No. 27 Dame Street, part of the Mercantile Hotel, to accommodate the new rear extension.

Crucially, the redevelopment involved the “amalgamation of Dame House with the existing Mercantile Hotel from 1st to 4th floor levels”. Dame House, described as a five-storey over basement building with a ground-floor café/restaurant and offices above, was therefore integrated into the expanded hotel rather than being demolished. The “partial demolition” primarily involved internal modifications within both buildings and the removal of the original mansard roof to enable the new design. The specific demolition of the rear of No. 27 Dame Street indicates that the new rear extension was constructed on this site. However, the provided information does not specify what businesses or structures were located there previously.

The objection to the planning permission by John Synnott & Co, a solicitor’s firm located on the first floor of Dame House, confirms a direct impact on existing businesses within Dame House due to the change of use from office space to hotel rooms. While deemed a separate legal matter by planning authorities, the objection highlights the displacement of at least one long-term tenant. Further research beyond these snippets would be needed to identify the specific businesses that occupied the ground-floor café/restaurant and the upper-floor offices within Dame House before its integration with the Mercantile Hotel.

The Mercantile Hotel boasts a long and significant history, dating back to its establishment in 1835. According to the Buildings of Ireland survey, the property at 27-28 Dame Street originated around 1800 as two separate houses: a two-bay house to the west and a three-bay house to the east, both featuring shops on the ground floor. Around 1870, these were combined and altered to form a larger, five-bay hotel building. In 1906, an attic storey was added, further modifying its structure. Throughout its history, the premises has served as both a hotel and a public house. The façade has been unified with its neighbour at Nos. 24-26 (Dame House), somewhat altering the original vertical emphasis of the terrace. Despite these changes, the building retains some Georgian character, including a public passageway with an ornate wrought-iron sign reading ‘Hotel’. An addition to the building is also noted as an early example of the Hennebique system of reinforced concrete framing in Dublin.

The evolution of the Mercantile Hotel from early 19th-century houses to a unified hotel in the late 19th century reflects the changing urban landscape of Dublin and the adaptation of buildings to commercial needs. The subsequent alterations in 1906 and the recent major renovation indicate a continuous process of modernisation. The early adoption of the Hennebique system of reinforced concrete highlights the hotel’s historical connection to innovative construction techniques.

EXPECTED WITHIN DAYS MY NEW FUJI GFX100RF

April 16, 2025 by infomatique

A MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERA IN A COMPACT BODY

When I last visited Belfast I had a bad fall and my Sony A7RIV has given many problems since then as it was damaged due making contact with a concrete bollard. Myself, I was out of action for a day because of bruised ribs.

I had considered buying the A7RV when it became available but after trying it for a week I decided to wait for the next version and to consider getting a Leica Q3 but the price was not to my liking so I decided not to purchase anything during 2024. In January I decided to purchase the Leica Q3 43 in May or June. But today I was given the opportunity to obtain a Fuji GFX100RF at a good price with a delivery date of the first week in May 2025 so I have decided to forget about the Leica for now. I will revisit Leica options in 2026 or 2027.

Fuji GFX100RF vs. Leica Q3: A Comparative Analysis for Street Photography.

The digital camera market continues to evolve, offering photographers an array of choices tailored to various needs and preferences. Among the latest entrants and established players in the high-end, fixed-lens segment are the Fuji GFX100RF and the Leica Q3 series (comprising the Q3 and Q3 43).

The Fuji GFX100RF marks a significant step for Fujifilm, bringing its renowned medium format sensor technology into a more compact, rangefinder-inspired body. This development suggests an ambition to cater to photographers seeking the pinnacle of image quality in a more portable form factor, potentially drawing those familiar with Fujifilm’s X100 series but desiring higher resolution.

Conversely, Leica’s Q series has carved a strong reputation in the full-frame, fixed-lens market, known for its exceptional image quality, premium build, and a distinct photographic experience.4 The introduction of the Leica Q3 43, featuring a different focal length than the original Q3, indicates Leica’s responsiveness to user feedback and a strategic move to broaden the appeal of its fixed-lens offerings by providing greater versatility in perspective.

This blog post aims to provide a detailed comparative analysis of the Fuji GFX100RF and the Leica Q3/Q3 43, with a specific focus on their suitability for street photography.

By examining their technical specifications, inherent advantages and disadvantages, notable similarities and differences, current availability challenges, summarised user and professional reviews, and RAW file processing compatibility, this analysis intends to offer a comprehensive overview for photographers considering these high-caliber cameras for their street photography endeavors.

Fuji GFX100RF: A Street Photography Perspective

The Fuji GFX100RF is engineered around a substantial 43.8mm x 32.9mm GFX 102MP CMOS II sensor, incorporating a primary colour filter. This exceptionally high resolution offers a significant advantage for street photographers who might want to refine their composition through cropping after capturing a scene. Despite featuring a fixed FUJINON GF 35mm f/4 lens, which provides a 28mm equivalent field of view on a full-frame camera, the immense resolution of the sensor allows users to effectively simulate different focal lengths by cropping into the image. This fixed focal length encourages a more deliberate and thoughtful approach to street photography, prompting photographers to carefully consider their framing and perspective.1For capturing the dynamic and often fleeting moments inherent in street photography, the GFX100RF is equipped with an Intelligent Hybrid AF system.

This system combines TTL contrast detection AF with TTL phase detection AF, also incorporating AI-assisted subject recognition capable of identifying animals, vehicles, birds, and aircraft. Furthermore, it features face and eye detection, enhancing its capabilities for street portraits. The phase detection AF offers low-light performance down to -3.0EV, which is crucial for focusing in the varied lighting conditions often encountered in urban environments.2In terms of physical attributes, the GFX100RF measures 133.5 x 90.4 x 76.5 mm and weighs 735g with the battery and memory card inserted.

While not as diminutive as some APS-C or full-frame compact cameras, its weight and size are notably manageable for a medium format system. This relative portability makes it a viable option for photographers who spend extended periods walking and shooting on the streets.

The image quality delivered by the GFX100RF is a significant draw, offering 16-bit RAW files, a wide dynamic range, and low noise performance starting from a base ISO of 80. Fujifilm’s signature set of 20 Film Simulations provides photographers with a range of aesthetic options directly in-camera, which can be particularly appealing for street photographers who prefer to minimise post-processing.

Additionally, the built-in 4-stop ND filter allows for greater creative control over exposure, especially in bright daylight conditions.1The camera offers continuous shooting capabilities up to 6 frames per second when using the mechanical shutter (with a buffer of 296 JPEG frames or 40 Compressed RAW frames) and up to 3 frames per second with the electronic shutter (boasting a much larger buffer of 1000+ JPEG frames or 508 Compressed RAW frames). While these speeds are adequate for capturing sequences in street photography, the RAW buffer depth might be a consideration for photographers who frequently shoot long bursts.

Beyond these core features, the GFX100RF incorporates an Aspect Ratio Dial, allowing for quick and direct selection between nine different aspect ratios, which can be a valuable tool for in-camera composition favoured by some street photographers. It also features a Digital Teleconverter, offering 45mm, 63mm, and 80mm equivalent focal lengths, providing a degree of versatility despite the fixed lens, albeit with a corresponding reduction in image resolution.

The inclusion of a leaf shutter enables flash synchronisation at speeds up to 1/4000s, offering creative lighting possibilities for street portraits.1For street photography, the GFX100RF presents several compelling advantages. Its 102MP medium format sensor stands out, providing exceptional detail and significant cropping flexibility for refining composition. The camera’s size and weight, while not the smallest, are surprisingly manageable for a medium format system, potentially making it suitable for all-day use. The 28mm equivalent lens is a widely favoured focal length for capturing the context of street scenes.

The built-in 4-stop ND filter offers creative control over exposure in bright conditions, and the unique Aspect Ratio Dial allows for in-camera compositional choices. The leaf shutter facilitates high-speed flash synchronisation, and Fujifilm’s renowned Film Simulations provide appealing out-of-camera JPEGs.

The improved autofocus system with subject recognition is also a benefit for capturing dynamic street scenes.2However, the GFX100RF also has potential drawbacks for street photography. The fixed 35mm f/4 lens (28mm equivalent) might not suit all street photography styles, particularly those favouring longer focal lengths or a shallower depth of field.10 The f/4 aperture might also limit performance in low-light conditions and the ability to achieve significant background blur compared to lenses with wider apertures.10 The absence of in-body image stabilisation (IBIS) could make handheld shooting at slower shutter speeds challenging, especially given the high resolution sensor which can amplify any camera shake.

The electronic shutter’s potential for image distortion with fast movement is another consideration. Some users might find the thumb placement awkward or desire a built-in grip for enhanced handling comfort.

Finally, the GFX100RF occupies a premium price point, which might be a barrier for some photographers.

Leica Q3 and Q3 43: A Street Photography PerspectiveThe Leica Q3 series centres around a 60MP Full-Frame BSI CMOS Sensor that incorporates Triple Resolution Technology, allowing users to select between 60MP, 36MP, or 18MP output. This full-frame sensor provides excellent image quality and strong low-light performance, while the Triple Resolution Technology offers flexibility in managing file sizes. The Leica Q3 is equipped with a fixed Summilux 28mm f/1.7 ASPH. lens, which includes an integrated macro mode.

The very fast f/1.7 aperture is a significant advantage for street photography, enabling shooting in dim lighting conditions and producing a shallow depth of field for subject isolation.4 The 28mm focal length is a classic choice for capturing the broader context of street scenes.In contrast, the Leica Q3 43 features a fixed APO-Summicron 43mm f/2 ASPH. lens, also with an integrated macro mode. The 43mm focal length, approximating a 35mm equivalent on full-frame, provides a more natural perspective that many street photographers prefer.

The f/2 aperture still offers good low-light capabilities and some degree of background separation.6 The APO designation of the lens signifies exceptional optical quality.Both Q3 models utilise a Hybrid Autofocus System that combines Phase Detection AF, Contrast AF, Depth from Defocus, and AI, including Face/Eye/Body Detection and Animal Detection. This advanced autofocus system aims to deliver fast and accurate focusing performance, crucial for capturing spontaneous moments in street photography.

Leica has made significant improvements to the autofocus in the Q3 series compared to its predecessors, making it a more competitive option for capturing dynamic street scenes.The dimensions and weight of the two Leica Q3 models are similar. The Leica Q3 measures 130 x 80.3 x 92.6 mm and weighs 743g with the battery 5, while the Leica Q3 43 is slightly larger at 130 x 80.3 x 97.6 mm and heavier at 772g with the battery.21 Both cameras are relatively compact and lightweight for full-frame systems, making them well-suited for carrying during extended street photography sessions. Their size and weight offer a good balance between portability and a substantial feel in hand.

The Leica Q3 series is renowned for its exceptional image quality, delivering rich detail and accurate colour rendition. Both models offer in-camera digital zoom/cropping capabilities. The Q3 provides equivalent focal lengths of 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, and 90mm, while the Q3 43 offers 60mm, 75mm, 90mm, 120mm, and 150mm equivalents. This feature provides some compositional flexibility without the need for lens changes.Both cameras boast a high continuous shooting speed of up to 15 frames per second. This rapid capture rate is advantageous for street photographers looking to capture fast-paced action or subtle changes in expression.Other notable features of the Leica Q3 series include a tiltable 3″ display, a high-resolution 5.67MP OLED viewfinder, IP52-rated ingress protection against dust and moisture, USB-C and HDMI ports, and the option for wireless charging with an optional handgrip. The tilting screen enhances versatility for shooting from various angles, a common requirement in street photography.

The high-resolution viewfinder offers a clear and detailed view for composition. Weather sealing adds durability for shooting in less than ideal conditions.For street photography, the Leica Q3 and Q3 43 offer several notable advantages. Their excellent image quality, stemming from the full-frame sensor and high-caliber lenses, is a primary draw. The fast maximum apertures (f/1.7 for the Q3 and f/2 for the Q3 43) are particularly beneficial for low-light shooting and creating shallow depth of field.4 Their relatively compact and lightweight designs make them suitable for extended periods of carrying and shooting. The improved hybrid autofocus system offers fast and generally accurate performance. The tiltable rear screen provides versatility for shooting from various perspectives, and the high continuous shooting speed is useful for capturing action.

The IP52 weather sealing adds a layer of protection for shooting in diverse environments.4However, the Leica Q3 series also has potential drawbacks for street photography. The very high price point is a significant consideration for most photographers. Some users report that the ergonomics can be challenging, with the body being somewhat slippery and potentially requiring the purchase of an optional grip for comfortable handling. While the autofocus has been improved, some reviews still note occasional inconsistencies in its performance.

The limitation to a fixed lens (either 28mm or 43mm) might not suit photographers who prefer the flexibility of interchangeable lenses or a wider range of focal lengths. The mechanical shutter’s maximum speed of 1/2000s can be limiting in very bright conditions, potentially necessitating the use of the electronic shutter, which can introduce rolling shutter effects.

Finally, the battery life, with a CIPA rating of approximately 350 shots, is relatively low compared to the Fuji GFX100RF.

Head-to-Head Comparison for Street Photography

The Fuji GFX100RF distinguishes itself with a significantly larger, higher-resolution sensor compared to the full-frame sensors of the Leica Q3 series. This difference can translate to greater detail and more extensive cropping capabilities. However, the Leica Q3 and Q3 43 offer faster lenses, which are advantageous for low-light performance and achieving a shallower depth of field, a characteristic often sought after in street photography.

While all three cameras feature advanced autofocus systems, real-world performance and consistency can vary. The Leica Q3 series incorporates optical image stabilisation, a feature absent in the GFX100RF, which can be beneficial for handheld shooting, especially at slower shutter speeds.

The size and weight of all three cameras are relatively similar, making them manageable for street photography. A significant differentiator is the price point, with the Leica Q3 models being notably more expensive than the Fuji GFX100RF. The choice between the 28mm lens of the Q3 and the 43mm lens of the Q3 43 depends on the photographer’s preferred perspective for street photography.

The Fuji GFX100RF Availability Challenge in the USA

Recent reports indicate that Fujifilm has suspended pre-orders for the GFX100RF in the United States. This development suggests that obtaining the camera within the next few months might be challenging for those in the US. The rumoured primary reason behind this suspension is the anticipation of new US tariffs on electronics imported from Japan.39 Tariffs can significantly increase the cost of imported goods, potentially affecting the retail price and overall availability.

Discussions in online forums reveal various perspectives on this situation. Some speculate that units already within the US might not be subject to the new tariffs, and Fujifilm could be holding back to assess the pricing implications. Others believe that the tariffs, having gone into effect before the camera’s official release date, should logically apply to all new shipments, potentially leading to a price increase across the board. There is also the possibility that no units have yet been shipped to the US.

Beyond the GFX100RF, other Fujifilm cameras manufactured in China, such as the X100VI and X-M5 (black version), are also reportedly facing order suspensions in the US due to even higher tariffs on goods from China. This broader issue highlights the potential impact of changing trade policies on the availability and pricing of photographic equipment from various manufacturers.

For the user in the US, this situation necessitates being aware of potential delays and the possibility of price fluctuations for the Fuji GFX100RF.

Review Insights and User Sentiment

Professional reviews of the Fuji GFX100RF consistently praise its compact size and lightweight design, especially considering its medium format sensor. The exceptional 102MP sensor and the resulting image quality are also frequently highlighted as key strengths. The 28mm equivalent lens is generally considered suitable for street photography, and features like the Aspect Ratio Dial and Fujifilm’s Film Simulations are appreciated for the creative control they offer.

However, the f/4 aperture and the lack of in-body image stabilisation are often mentioned as potential limitations, particularly in low-light scenarios. Some reviewers have drawn favourable comparisons between the GFX100RF’s shooting experience and that of the Leica Q series.

Reviews of the Leica Q3 and Q3 43 consistently commend their excellent image quality and the fast apertures of their lenses. The addition of a tilting screen in the Q3 series is seen as a significant advantage for street photography. The build quality and handling are generally well-received, although some users find that an optional grip is necessary for optimal comfort. While the autofocus system is considered good, some reviews point out occasional inconsistencies.

The high price is a recurring point of discussion, often cited as a major drawback. The Q3 43’s 43mm lens is often praised for offering a more natural perspective preferred by many photographers.

Initial user feedback on the Fuji GFX100RF highlights its smaller-than-expected size and impressive image quality. Some users have noted minor quirks, such as the disappearance of aspect ratio options when shooting in RAW-only mode. The depth of field achievable at f/4 on the medium format sensor is surprisingly pleasing to many early users.

Leica Q3 and Q3 43 users often emphasise the exceptional image quality and the overall premium experience of using a Leica camera. The 28mm lens of the Q3 is viewed as a versatile option for various types of photography, including travel and everyday shooting, while the 43mm lens of the Q3 43 is favoured by those who prefer a slightly tighter, more natural field of view. The high cost is frequently acknowledged but often considered justifiable by the image quality and the prestige associated with the Leica brand. Some users have reported occasional issues with autofocus consistency and the ergonomics of the camera body.

Based on the available reviews, there isn’t a definitive tendency to favour one camera over the others. The choice appears to be highly subjective and contingent on individual priorities. The GFX100RF appeals to photographers who prioritise ultimate resolution and the unique aesthetic of a medium format sensor in a relatively portable package, potentially at a more accessible price point than other medium format options. The Leica Q3 series attracts those who value the Leica brand, exceptional full-frame image quality, faster lenses for enhanced low-light capabilities and bokeh, and are willing to invest a premium for these attributes.

The decision between the Q3 and Q3 43 within the Leica lineup further depends on the photographer’s preference for a wider (28mm) or a more standard (43mm) focal length.

RAW File Processing Compatibility

Adobe Lightroom fully supports RAW files (.RAF) from the Fuji GFX100RF. The latest versions of Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw are compatible with these files. Fujifilm also provides Tether Shooting Plug-ins for Lightroom Classic, including a PRO version specifically designed for GFX series cameras. These plug-ins offer enhanced tethered shooting capabilities for GFX users within the Lightroom environment.

While there have been past discussions regarding Lightroom’s handling of RAW files from Fujifilm cameras utilising X-Trans sensors, these concerns are less relevant for the GFX100RF, which employs a standard Bayer sensor.

Information regarding the compatibility of Fuji GFX100RF RAW files with DXO PhotoRaw is somewhat limited based on the provided material. However, one source indicates that support for the Fujifilm GFX100RF in both DxO PhotoLab and DxO PureRAW is expected to be available in July 2025. DXO PhotoLab already supports RAW files from other GFX cameras, such as the GFX100 II, GFX100S, and the original GFX100. Given this existing support for other GFX models with similar sensors, it is probable that compatibility for the GFX100RF will be added in due course.

DXO PureRAW 5 includes enhanced processing capabilities for both Bayer and X-Trans sensors, demonstrating DXO’s ongoing commitment to supporting Fujifilm cameras.

Conclusion and Recommendation

In summary, the Fuji GFX100RF offers the unique advantage of a high-resolution medium format sensor in a relatively compact body, making it a compelling option for photographers seeking exceptional detail and cropping flexibility. Its 28mm equivalent lens is well-suited for street photography, and features like the built-in ND filter and Aspect Ratio Dial enhance creative control. However, its f/4 aperture and lack of IBIS might be limitations in certain situations.

The Leica Q3 and Q3 43 provide excellent full-frame image quality with faster lenses, offering better low-light performance and shallower depth of field. Their more compact size and the inclusion of optical image stabilisation are also beneficial for street photography. The choice between the Q3’s 28mm lens and the Q3 43’s 43mm lens depends on the photographer’s preferred perspective. A significant factor is the price, with the Leica Q3 series being considerably more expensive than the GFX100RF.

Additionally, potential US tariffs are currently impacting the availability of the Fuji GFX100RF in the USA.For users who prioritise ultimate image resolution, cropping flexibility, and the distinctive look of a medium format sensor at a relatively lower price point (compared to other medium format options), the Fuji GFX100RF could be an attractive choice, provided they are comfortable with a fixed 28mm equivalent lens and the absence of IBIS. They should also be aware of the current uncertainty surrounding its availability in the US market.

Photographers who prioritise exceptional low-light performance, shallower depth of field, and the prestige of the Leica brand might find the Leica Q3 (with its 28mm f/1.7 lens) to be an excellent option. Those who prefer a more natural, “normal” perspective while still benefiting from Leica’s image quality and a fast lens would likely favour the Leica Q3 43 (with its 43mm f/2 lens).Ultimately, the optimal choice depends on the individual photographer’s budget, preferred focal length, shooting style, and tolerance for potential availability issues. It is recommended that the user consider these factors carefully and, if possible, try out the cameras in person to assess their handling and ergonomics before making a final decision.

LUIGI MALONES FINAL DAY IN DUBLIN

April 13, 2025 by infomatique

SUNDAY 13 APRIL 2025

Myself and a group of friends met up for a meal at Luigi Malones once a week for about seven years (2000 – 2008) so I was a bit upset when I discovered that the restaurant’s final day was today.

My favourite restaurant Eatokyo On Capel Street closed at the end of January and I expect further bad news about another restaurant within the next month. I should also mention that Desi Crew on South Richmond Street has also closed a few weeks ago. Note: Eatokyo in Temple Bar has survived and is doing very well.

The establishment of the Luigi Malones brand in Ireland can be traced definitively to 1997. Multiple sources confirm that the first restaurant under this name opened in Stillorgan, a suburb of Dublin, during that year. This marks the formal beginning of the restaurant chain within the Irish market. My family home was in Stillorgan but I have no recollection of the restaurant in Stillorgan.

In 1999, a significant strategic move occurred with the relocation of the Dublin operation from Stillorgan to the heart of the city’s cultural and nightlife quarter, Temple Bar. The new premises were located at 5-6 Cecilia Street , occupying two floors and a mezzanine level within a building noted for its historical significance, with records dating back centuries. This relocation positioned the restaurant prominently within a high-footfall area, catering to both locals and the significant tourist traffic in Temple Bar.

The brand identity cultivated during this period centred around the motto “For Food – For Fun – For Friends!”. The menu concept drew inspiration from international travels, aiming for broad appeal with a mix of cuisines. Core offerings included popular Italian-American style dishes such as freshly made pasta, pizzas, and Buffalo wings, alongside signature desserts like their Toblerone Cheesecake.

Interestingly, promotional materials on the restaurant’s own platforms reference an earlier connection to Munich, Germany, specifically mentioning serving Fischer’s Helles beer there in the late 1980s. The narrative states, “When Luigi’s moved to Ireland, we brought Fischer’s with us”. While this detail forms part of the company’s self-presented story, potentially relating to a prior venture by the founders or a conceptual origin, it does not alter the documented founding date and location of the Irish Luigi Malones chain. The consistent reporting across various sources points to Stillorgan in 1997 as the inception point for the business entity analysed in this report. The phrasing used regarding the move to Ireland further suggests that the Irish operation, starting in 1997, is considered distinct from any previous activity in Munich.

Cork Branch

The expansion into Cork occurred in 1999, coinciding with the move to Temple Bar in Dublin. This suggests a period of significant growth and investment for the brand. The Cork restaurant was established at 1-2 Emmett Place, a prime city-centre location directly opposite the Cork Opera House.

Described as one of the largest restaurants in Cork , the venue became known for its distinctive interior decor. Notable features include a large, two-sided clock reportedly originating from St. Pancras Station in London, serving as a centrepiece around the bar area. There is also an anecdotal belief that one of the propellers from the historic Vickers Vimy aircraft, flown by Alcock and Brown on the first non-stop transatlantic flight, is displayed within the Cork restaurant , adding to its unique character.

The Cork branch successfully established itself and has demonstrated considerable longevity. It remained operational following the closure of the Dublin branch in April 2025. As part of the Dublin closure announcement, it was confirmed that the Cork restaurant would honour any outstanding gift vouchers issued by the Dublin location. The restaurant maintains an active presence, listed on various dining platforms with current operating hours and contact information readily available. It appears integrated into the local dining scene, mentioned in contexts ranging from family outings to general restaurant discussions.

Limerick Branch

Luigi Malones also operated a branch in Limerick City. It was situated in a prominent location on O’Connell Street , opposite The Royal George hotel , in premises that historically housed a Woolworths store and, even earlier, the original site of a local bank. Like its sister restaurants, the Limerick venue was noted for its decor and catered to a broad audience, including families, with specific meal deals and kids’ menus advertised. Its presence is confirmed by mentions in online forums discussing Limerick dining options around 2006.

However, the Limerick expansion ultimately proved unsuccessful. The restaurant ceased trading in January 2011. News reports from June 2011, discussing plans by another restaurant group to take over the vacant unit, explicitly state that the Luigi Malones closure occurred in January of that year due to “financial difficulties”.

The failure of the Limerick branch represents an important data point in the chain’s history. Occurring more than a decade before the Dublin closure, it demonstrates that the brand was not immune to financial pressures and that profitability challenges existed within the group well before the difficulties experienced in Dublin in the 2020s. This suggests that factors beyond localised issues, potentially related to expansion strategy, operational costs, or specific market conditions in Limerick at the time, could impact the viability of individual branches within the chain. It serves as an early indicator that the group’s financial health was not uniformly robust across all locations or throughout its entire operational history.

The closure of the Luigi Malones restaurant in Temple Bar on April 13, 2025, marked the end of a 28-year trading history at that location. Over the years, it had become a well-known establishment, described as “iconic” or “beloved” and frequented by various groups, including long-term patrons and visiting students.

The closure announcement released by the restaurant operators presented a clear narrative regarding the decision to cease trading.

Primary Catalyst – Street Works: The immediate and decisive factor cited was the impact of extensive street works undertaken directly outside the restaurant premises in early 2025. The announcement expressed “deep frustration” that the business had been “effectively barricaded” for three months.

Critically, these works significantly overran their initially communicated schedule; the operators stated they were told the project would take one month but it ultimately lasted over three. This prolonged disruption directly caused turnover to “plummet”. The resulting financial loss was described as “the straw that broke the camel’s back,” making continued trading impossible without damaging stakeholders. This explanation was consistently reported across multiple news outlets covering the closure.

Contributing Factors: Alongside the acute impact of the street works, the owners acknowledged underlying pressures. These included the “gradual but general decline in trade in Dublin City Centre for various reasons known to myself and others compounded by “inflationary pressures that have made it impossible for our operation to trade at a profit”. This aligns with broader commentary on the challenges facing the hospitality sector, with the CEO of the Restaurants Association of Ireland noting the “razor-thin margins” in the industry when commenting on the closure.

I LIKE PHOTOGRAPHING THE TREES IN PHOENIX PARK

April 11, 2025 by infomatique

9 APRIL 2025

Phoenix Park in Dublin is renowned for its expansive green spaces and diverse collection of trees. Here’s a look at the variety you can find, and some of its notable arboreal features:

Variety of Trees:

The park boasts a wide range of tree species, contributing to its rich biodiversity. Common varieties include:
Oak (Quercus robur)
Ash
Lime
Sycamore
Horse Chestnut
Hawthorn
Beech
Evergreens
Key Features:

The park contains various woodland habitats, and also scattered trees within parkland areas.
There has been extensive tree planting over the years, to maintain and replace older trees.
The horse chestnut trees within the park create some very impressive avenue’s. These trees have had problems with horse chestnut bleeding canker, and there has been work done to combat this disease.

It’s important to note the presence of semi-natural oak-ash-hazel woodland, which is a valuable habitat.

The park’s older trees contribute significantly to its historical landscape. Determining the single “oldest” tree can be difficult, but many mature oaks and other species are centuries old.
The park is also home to protected plant species, showing the importance of the parks biodiversity.

I PHOTOGRAPHED BOLTON STREET USING A CANON 5D MKIII AND I HAD A CANNOT COMMUNICATE WITH BATTERY ERROR

April 7, 2025 by infomatique

PHOTOGRAPHED 6 APRIL 2025

It should be mentioned that the batteries are/were original Canon product and I have included a detailed discussion of the issue which may be of interest I you ever consider buying a used Canon 5D MkIII.

On 6 April 2025, I photographed Bolton Street using a Canon 5D Mark III. This camera, which I acquired a few years ago, has recently presented some intriguing technical challenges. My local camera dealer, aware of my extensive collection of Canon lenses (despite my shift to Sony mirrorless systems), offered me an unused 5D Mark III at a very favourable price. The camera had been won in a competition and remained unused for several years. I agreed to purchase it, provided he could supply a GPS attachment.

Currently, I am in the process of evaluating my photographic equipment, deciding which cameras to retain. I opted to use the Canon 5D Mark III for a week. However, upon powering it on, I encountered a ‘battery communication error’. Subsequent attempts with different batteries yielded the same error, and the display panel went blank, rendering the camera unresponsive.

After several hours of troubleshooting, I discovered that removing the SD card allowed the camera to restart. Inserting an old CompactFlash (CF) card enabled normal operation. Reinserting the original SD card caused the camera to crash. Replacing it with a new SD card resolved the issue.

This problem prompted me to investigate the Canon 5D Mark III’s operational characteristics, particularly concerning memory card compatibility and reported issues.

Canon 5D Mark III: General Operational Considerations

The Canon 5D Mark III, although a robust professional DSLR, has documented limitations. Some users report less flexibility in RAW file shadow recovery and inferior high ISO performance compared to the Canon 6D. The autofocus system, while adequate, exhibits weaker low-light sensitivity at its centre point than the 6D. This indicates trade-offs in specific photographic scenarios.

The 61-point autofocus system, while offering advanced tracking, requires considerable expertise to master, potentially leading to challenges in capturing fast-moving subjects. The complexity of this system suggests sensitivity to operational conditions and external factors, such as memory card insertion.

Additionally, reports of image sharpness issues, often attributed to lens calibration or wide-aperture lens characteristics, highlight potential operational challenges.

One particularly relevant account describes erratic camera behaviour following a low battery state, including spontaneous photo capture and unresponsive controls. Prolonged removal of the battery, lens, and memory card, to discharge an internal ‘keep alive’ capacitor, resolved the issue. This suggests the camera’s electronic systems are sensitive to power fluctuations, potentially linking my battery communication error to a past low battery or unexpected power-down scenario affecting peripheral communication.

SD Card Compatibility and Limitations

The Canon 5D Mark III features dual memory card slots for CF and SD cards. However, the camera’s SD card implementation has limitations. It is not recommended for high-speed burst shooting, as speeds are capped at approximately 20MB/s, despite supporting UHS-I SD cards. When both CF and SD cards are inserted, write speed defaults to the slower card, hindering CF card performance.

The camera does not support UHS-II SD cards, limiting high-speed card potential and potentially contributing to communication issues. Some photographers advise using the SD card slot sparingly, primarily for wireless transfers via Eye-Fi cards, and relying on CF cards for image capture.

Reports of the camera not stopping writing to both SDXC and CF cards, while different from my issue, indicate potential instability in memory card handling. Recommendations include formatting cards within the camera and using faster CF cards.

Simultaneous use of both card slots can reduce the camera’s buffer size, suggesting shared system resources and potential performance degradation or communication errors.

Firmware Updates and Memory Card/Battery Issues

Firmware updates often address bugs and improve performance. The latest firmware, version 1.3.6, primarily corrects PTP communication and update process vulnerabilities, not directly addressing SD card or battery communication issues.

However, earlier firmware, such as version 1.2.1, addressed memory card-related problems, including LCD monitor freezes during Live View and issues with Eye-Fi cards, demonstrating Canon’s awareness of memory card compatibility.

User Experiences with Similar Issues

User forums reveal reports of physically damaged SD card slots and instances where the camera powers on without an SD card but shuts down upon insertion. This mirrors my issue, suggesting a link between SD card insertion and power system errors. Recommendations include reformatting SD cards (FAT32 for cards 32GB or smaller, exFAT for larger cards) and trying new cards.

Other users report ‘Error 2 – card cannot be accessed’ and complete SD slot failures, further indicating potential SD card interface issues.

Interplay Between SD Card and Battery Communication Errors

While battery communication errors can occur independently, my issue appears triggered by SD card insertion. It is possible my ‘battery communication error’ is a power-related issue stemming from SD card communication difficulties. The camera might draw excessive power or experience instability when accessing the SD card, resulting in a battery monitoring error.

Cleaning battery contact points is a general troubleshooting step. Canon’s error code documentation does not explicitly mention SD card-triggered battery communication errors, suggesting it may be uncommon or misreported.

The fact that memory card issues can cause complete power-offs indicates a deep integration between memory card interface and power management, supporting the possibility of a link between these issues.

SD Card Age, Speed Class, and Brand Impact

The Canon 5D Mark III is compatible with SD, SDHC, and SDXC cards, with a suggested maximum capacity of 128GB, although larger cards are often supported. The camera operates UHS-I cards at Class 10 speeds and does not support UHS-II cards.”