Don't write off the London Eye so quickly. If the weather is nice (it is at the moment), the views are spectacular, and the 'glass' isn't that much of a problem.
Like most of the comments above, London can be a spectacular place to photograph. Just always be at the ready. You really don't know what might be just around the corner.
(Guess where I live?)

The problem is it's painful cupping the hand, like you do when holding anything! So I seem to have quite a few ideas thrown around.
The only problem is that I'm in the UK and can't really take advantage of some of the places recommended!
The search for comfort continues!!

Cost- ouch! It would be a bit tricky wearing that with a suit.
I remember the official photographer using something that clamped to his belt as he was using two bodies.
I think I have to research that further.

That would help for the camera (and possibly the lens) but with an SB-900 on it as well, I don't think it would work.
The other thing advertised on that page - Capture Camera Clip system might work.
But expensive!
Need to investigate further.

I have a D90 that came with an AF-S 18-105 f3.5-5.6G ED lens (that's quite a 'kit' lens!). I also have an AF-S 55-200 f1.4-5.6G ED and an SB-900.
I was at a family wedding and fired off over 100 shots (some posed, some natural). At the end of the evening my hand was really hurting.
I have now been diagnosed with arthritis in both hands. So that would explain the pain.
The question is: is there something I can use to take the weight of camera and flash to relieve the weight on my hand?
A D90 + 18-105 + SB-900 comes to quite a lot of camera! I was letting the strap take the strain most of the time, but as you all must know, there are times when you just have to have the camera in your hands rather than leave it dangling and hope to get 'that' photo.

What kind of monitor do they have? I found exactly the same problem between when I viewed my photos on a flatscreen monitor (of any kind), and an 'old style' CRT screen.
The results on the CRT ALWAYS looked terrible!

I think I'm going to have to investigate GIMP in much more detail as well. I'm only using it for some very simple things at the moment.

I only shoot in jpg. I don't think I have the patience (or the time) to have to post process RAW files. It would seem I have a lot more experimenting to do. Now all I need is the time to be able to do it. Summer is coming, so I hope to get some more testing done.
Are all of the post processing programs the same or is there any one that is better? Not everyone can afford PhotoShop!

I suppose I've been around for a while, I started with a Nikon FT, then ran a pair of FE's for over twenty years, had a very bad experience with my first digital camera (all I'll say about it is that it wasn't a Nikon). Went for a Coolpix 5700, but hated the shutter lag and now have a D90 that I am more than satisfied with. I don't need any more pixels and after a couple of years am still trying things out. I have the 18-105 f3.5-5.6G lens as standard and bought the 55-200 1.4-5.6G to complement that.
Now the question. I was quite happy with the results (as I should be), but found on a GiveAway site a program called 'Simply Good Pictures', that is now marketed as 'Photomizer'. The results from using this are simply stunning, and I wonder if there is any way at all that I could get this kind of result from the camera, or is post-processing the inevital way to go?
I attach an example.

Original photo


After processing