# Order New Camera Online?



## Joker Eh

So I have been keeping an eye on prices for a camera upgrade I am looking into. I use the site photoprice.ca to compare between stores.

Always near the top in terms of pricing is Camera Canada. But they are located in London, Ontario. So my question would you order expensive new equipment online and have it shipped to you knowing the abuse it will take along the way?

I don't know if I want to take that chance to save approx $70.


----------



## IllusionX

Shipments already have been abused, shipping from distribution to stores. I wouldn't worry much...

Perhaps you can get deals at your local store.. say pay more for the same camera, but you get freebies.


----------



## Joker Eh

IllusionX said:


> Shipments already have been abused, shipping from distribution to stores. I wouldn't worry much...
> 
> *Perhaps you can get deals at your local store.. say pay more for the same camera, but you get freebies*.


Well there is that as well. The one store is offering a battery grip for $99 which is normally about $300 - $350.


----------



## eMacMan

I like to handle items and particularly camera equipment before I buy. 

My last P&S turned out to be a Kodak. It had less shutter lag, by far the best anti-shake system, an excellent Schneider designed lens and the various features and menus were somewhat easier to navigate. This camera out performed two Panasonics and a couple of other big names that I tested.

Was it the best camera for the price? I have no idea, it was the best of those which I tested.

One simply cannot rely on on-line reviews. Sometimes the reviewer is looking for some feature that is not in a given camera and they allow that to taint the entire review. With point and shoots the optimum pixel count is not always the maximum count so testing at max can lead to a misleading review....


----------



## ShawnKing

Joker Eh said:


> would you order expensive new equipment online and have it shipped to you knowing the abuse it will take along the way?


I bought a Nikon D600 online and had it shipped. Just make sure the shipper has insurance.


----------



## ShawnKing

Joker Eh said:


> The one store is offering a battery grip for $99 which is normally about $300 - $350.


I'd be cautious about that "deal". If it seems too good to be true, it often is.


----------



## ShawnKing

eMacMan said:


> I like to handle items and particularly camera equipment before I buy.


Agreed particularly if you are unfamiliar with the camera. I always recommend folks handle a camera in store before buying it unless they already know they are going to like the "feel" of the camera. I bought a Nikon D600 online but, because I had used many Nikons in the past, knew I would have no significant issues.

But if you go to a store to shop for cameras, please make every effort to BUY FROM THAT STORE. Showrooming is killing small retailers.



> One simply cannot rely on on-line reviews.


Agree and disagree. Many reviews can be suspect but if you find a site that does good reviews, you can save a lot of hassle. I highly recommend these sites for good, honest, fair reviews:

Digital Photography Review: Digital Photography Review
Steve's Digicams - Digital Camera Reviews, Camera News, and Photography Information

Both are sites I completely trust.


----------



## screature

Joker Eh said:


> So I have been keeping an eye on prices for a camera upgrade I am looking into. I use the site photoprice.ca to compare between stores.
> 
> Always near the top in terms of pricing is Camera Canada. But they are located in London, Ontario. *So my question would you order expensive new equipment online and have it shipped to you knowing the abuse it will take along the way?*
> 
> I don't know if I want to take that chance to save approx $70.


I did it 20 plus years ago from the US for a film camera from Contax (good old Contax, replete with *real* Zeiss lenses, not the crap you get today on the point and shoots), but it wasn't online as online barely existed. It was simply mail order from a camera magazine.

Everything came as ordered, only problem was the electronics in the view finder was a little skewed and you couldn't view it quite properly through the view finder. One letter later and returning it, I got either a brand new camera back or they sent me the same camera I originally bought fixed.

I think to this day it may have been the best camera I have ever owned until it was stolen from my apartment from a B&E.

So I would say that so long as you are dealing with a reputable dealer and have checked out the camera physically at a bricks and motor store so that you know you like the feel of it you should have no hesitation buying a camera online.

I sure wouldn't.

The abuse is minimal shipping it to you considering the abuse it has already taken coming from Asia. If anything is wrong you simply return it and get a replacement.

It is really no different in that regard than buying an Apple computer online. The risk of receiving a dud due to shipping damage are no different.


----------



## Joker Eh

ShawnKing said:


> I bought a Nikon D600 online and had it shipped. Just make sure the shipper has insurance.


How do you like the D600?



ShawnKing said:


> I'd be cautious about that "deal". If it seems too good to be true, it often is.


Well you have to buy the camera there, so that's the catch.



screature said:


> I did it 20 plus years ago from the US for a film camera from Contax (good old Contax, replete with *real* Zeiss lenses, not the crap you get today on the point and shoots), but it wasn't online as online barely existed. It was simply mail order from a camera magazine.
> 
> Everything came as ordered, only problem was the electronics in the view finder was a little skewed and you couldn't view it quite properly through the view finder. One letter later and returning it, I got either a brand new camera back or they sent me the same camera I originally bought fixed.
> 
> I think to this day it may have been the best camera I have ever owned until it was stolen from my apartment from a B&E.
> 
> So I would say that so long as you are dealing with a reputable dealer and have checked out the camera physically at a bricks and motor store so that you know you like the feel of it you should have no hesitation buying a camera online.
> 
> I sure wouldn't.
> 
> The abuse is minimal shipping it to you considering the abuse it has already taken coming from Asia. If anything is wrong you simply return it and get a replacement.
> 
> *It is really no different in that regard than buying an Apple computer online.* The risk of receiving a dud due to shipping damage are no different.


Very true. But thinking just in case I have to return something I would rather deal with brick and mortar instead of dealing someone online.


----------



## screature

Joker Eh said:


> Very true. But thinking just in case I have to return something I would rather deal with brick and mortar instead of dealing someone online.


Yes there is that. When I bought the Contax from the US the savings were substantial.


----------



## ShawnKing

Joker Eh said:


> How do you like the D600?


Loving it so far! Still have to take it in for the free servicing Nikon is offering after their screw ups with that model but here are some shots I took with it on "Italian Day" a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## Todd

Joker Eh said:


> So I have been keeping an eye on prices for a camera upgrade I am looking into. I use the site photoprice.ca to compare between stores.
> 
> Always near the top in terms of pricing is Camera Canada. But they are located in London, Ontario. So my question would you order expensive new equipment online and have it shipped to you knowing the abuse it will take along the way?
> 
> I don't know if I want to take that chance to save approx $70.


Cameras, lenses, computers and computer gear, DVDs, stereo equipment, auto parts, plumbing parts; I've ordered all through online sources and had shipped to me.

I'm not sure of this "abuse" you're afraid of. This stuff travelled thousands of kilometres from China inside a metal box chained to the deck of a pitching, rolling boat. What's another few hundred in a truck going to do?


----------



## Todd

screature said:


> So I would say that so long as you are dealing with a reputable dealer and have checked out the camera physically at a bricks and motor store so that you know you like the feel of it you should have no hesitation buying a camera online.


If you "checked out" the camera in a store and that experience was helpful in deciding what to buy then you should buy from that store.

Taking advantage of a retail store that pays for rent, show lighting, displays, demo products and staff just to fondle their property any buy it cheaper online is pretty low.


----------



## screature

Todd said:


> If you "checked out" the camera in a store and that experience was helpful in deciding what to buy then you should buy from that store.
> 
> *Taking advantage of a retail store that pays for rent, show lighting, displays, demo products and staff just to fondle their property any buy it cheaper online is pretty low.*


:lmao: No it's not. It's called being a smart consumer, some people call it kicking the tires. Do you not shop around? If you don't your not a very good consumer. 

"Taking advantage of", really you are being serious? :lmao:

Dude you need to get with the program when it comes to being smart with your money. I don't owe a bricks and mortar store anything just because I go in and see a product in the flesh and decide to buy it elsewhere, be it online or from another store.

Your attributing some "morality" to shopping around is quite laughable if it weren't for the fact that you decided to insult me in the process.


----------



## Todd

screature said:


> :lmao: No it's not. It's called being a smart consumer, some people call it kicking the tires. Do you not shop around? If you don't your not a very good consumer.
> 
> "Taking advantage of", really you are being serious? :lmao:
> 
> Dude you need to get with the program when it comes to being smart with your money. I don't owe a bricks and mortar store anything just because I go in and see a product in the flesh and decide to buy it elsewhere, be it online or from another store.
> 
> Your attributing some "morality" to shopping around is quite laughable if it weren't for the fact that you decided to insult me in the process.


I comparison shop, of course. I consider myself a very frugal shopper. But I recognize the value of the service provided to me if I go to a physical store to examine goods I am interested in. If I make use of that service, I have an obligation to not take advantage and buy elsewhere from an online discount store. In other words, if the physical store provided a service that was valuable to me, I should pay for it.

Worse is when people visit a store and ask questions to staff to help decide what to buy then leave to an online store with a cheaper price. I hear this from camera store staff especially, since there is a lot to know and a lot to compare when choosing a camera. Stores are less and less willing to help people because their knowledge is regularly taken but the sale goes to the online warehouse selling for $50 cheaper.

This is a growing problem that has to stop. "Show rooming" where consumers visit stores only to take advantage of their product displays, then leave to buy online at a cheaper price is disgusting. I research and shop online all the time. But if I go to a store purposefully to inspect or try a product - and especially if I get useful advice from staff - I know that has value and that it should be paid for.


----------



## ShawnKing

Todd said:


> Worse is when people visit a store and ask questions to staff to help decide what to buy then leave to an online store with a cheaper price.
> 
> This is a growing problem that has to stop. "Show rooming" where consumers visit stores only to take advantage of their product displays, then leave to buy online at a cheaper price is disgusting.


And then people whine about the fact there is no brick and mortar store near them anymore that sells product. I see it in the motorcycling community all the time. People "shop" at a M/C dealer, try on helmets, gloves, jackets, get advice/fitted from the staff and then go online and save $50 on a helmet and brag about what a great deal they got.

Those people are always the ones who are most surprised when their local M/C dealer closes down....


----------



## Joker Eh

For $50 I would never buy online versus a neighborhood store. Only if the savings are significant will I buy online and even then most of the stores I know will match a online store after considering shipping charges if any.


----------



## screature

Todd said:


> I comparison shop, of course. I consider myself a very frugal shopper. *But I recognize the value of the service provided to me if I go to a physical store to examine goods I am interested in. If I make use of that service, I have an obligation to not take advantage and buy elsewhere from an online discount store. In other words, if the physical store provided a service that was valuable to me, I should pay for it.
> *
> Worse is when people visit a store and ask questions to staff to help decide what to buy then leave to an online store with a cheaper price. I hear this from camera store staff especially, since there is a lot to know and a lot to compare when choosing a camera. Stores are less and less willing to help people because their knowledge is regularly taken but the sale goes to the online warehouse selling for $50 cheaper.
> 
> *This is a growing problem that has to stop. "Show rooming" where consumers visit stores only to take advantage of their product displays,* then leave to buy online at a cheaper price is disgusting. I research and shop online all the time. But if I go to a store purposefully to inspect or try a product - and especially if I get useful advice from staff - I know that has value and that it should be paid for.


Nonsense. 

How much time does it take to physically handle a camera? Literally minutes, maybe 5 min. tops. All the while the clerk serves another customer while I handle the camera. 

The time it takes for the camera store employee to hand me the camera and put it back? Literally seconds. They are being paid for their time, which for the amount of time they take to hand me the camera costs the store pennies.

As compared to people selling furniture, cars, homes, etc. take up far, far much more time showing potential clients their wares only not to get a sale and then in those circumstances they are paid on commission. If camera equipment was sold on commission I would tend to agree with you a little... very little.

I have absolutely zero, none, rein, obligation to buy something from someone merely because they showed it to me.

When I go to look at a camera I ask no advice form the clerk because I have researched the product thoroughly and already know as much about the product as they do. All I want to do is hold the thing and see if it fits my hand and I like the actual feel of the camera, which is *exactly* what I said in the first place if you actually read and *comprehended* my post by before you made your insulting comment. 

That is disgusting? Low? You really need to get off your moral high horse and come down to earth. 

As for it being a "growing problem" brick and mortar stores need to get with "orange is the new black" and adapt or face going out of business. Just because they continue to operate with an outdated business model is not my problem, it is theirs.

They need to step up their game... say offer an extended one year warranty at no cost. Now that would be truly value added instead of me paying for some sales pitch and the reciting of "information" (often BS) that I already know.

It's called competition for a reason.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> How much time does it take to physically handle a camera? Literally minutes, maybe 5 min. tops. All the while the clerk serves another customer while I handle the camera.
> 
> The time it takes for the camera store employee to hand me the camera and put it back? Literally seconds. They are being paid for their time, which for the amount of time they take to hand me the camera costs the store pennies.
> 
> As compared to people selling furniture, cars, homes, etc. take up far, far much more time showing potential clients their wares only not to get a sale and then in those circumstances they are paid on commission. If camera equipment was sold on commission I would tend to agree with you a little... very little.
> 
> I have absolutely zero, none, rein, obligation to buy something from someone merely because they showed it to me.
> 
> When I go to look at a camera I ask no advice form the clerk because I have researched the product thoroughly and already know as much about the product as they do. All I want to do is hold the thing and see if it fits my hand and I like the actual feel of the camera, which is *exactly* what I said in the first place if you actually read and *comprehended* my post by before you made your insulting comment.
> 
> That is disgusting? Low? You really need to get off your moral high horse and come down to earth.
> 
> As for it being a "growing problem" brick and mortar stores need to get with "orange is the new black" and adapt or face going out of business. Just because they continue to operate with an outdated business model is not my problem, it is theirs.
> 
> They need to step up their game... say offer an extended one year warranty at no cost. Now that would be truly value added instead of me paying for some sales pitch and the reciting of "information" (often BS) that I already know.
> 
> It's called competition for a reason.


I tried 5 different cameras before purchasing the Kodak. Two of them I was able to reject quickly. The other three required about an hour worth of testing each allowing me to compare image quality, shutter lag, menu convenience, and a number of other things. I was more than happy to support the camera dealer that went out of his way to make sure I had the camera that best suited my needs. 

That was a $200 purchase. Were I purchasing an expensive camera my evaluation would be even more exacting. I would never purchase even a used car based on a five minute test drive. A camera is an item I use a lot, why not take the time to make sure it is exactly what I want.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> I tried 5 different cameras before purchasing the Kodak. Two of them I was able to reject quickly. The other three required about an hour worth of testing each allowing me to compare image quality, shutter lag, menu convenience, and a number of other things. I was more than happy to support the camera dealer that went out of his way to make sure I had the camera that best suited my needs.
> 
> That was a $200 purchase. Were I purchasing an expensive camera my evaluation would be even more exacting. I would never purchase even a used car based on a five minute test drive. A camera is an item I use a lot, why not take the time to make sure it is exactly what I want.


I really am not quite sure what you are saying here.

As I already stated I would have already done my research and would only go into a bricks and mortar store just to know that the camera fits my hand and I liked the physical build quality of the thing without asking any advice from the store employee and taking up their time.

Compare that to buying a car, even a used car, where I go out for a test drive and take up much more of the employees time (who works on commission) only to decide that I will buy the same make and model of car from somewhere else because they provide a better price and or service. Am I obliged to buy from the first guy? I say no, not at all.

So, I really don't know what you are saying with your post.

My first obligation is doing what is right for me and my family, not for some salesman and the company that they represent. 

IMO if you feel otherwise you are playing a fool's game and one that they hope you will play along with them.


----------



## Joker Eh

screature said:


> They need to step up their game... say offer an extended one year warranty at no cost. Now that would be truly value added instead of me paying for some sales pitch and the reciting of "information" (often BS) that I already know.


If they offered the 2-year warranty they try and sell you when you buy the camera for free that would make me not even think about going online.

I like that idea. But then the online stores would do the same so we are back where we started.


----------



## screature

Joker Eh said:


> If they offered the 2-year warranty they try and sell you when you buy the camera for free that would make me not even think about going online.
> 
> I like that idea. *But then the online stores would do the same so we are back where we started.*


If that were to happen then the bricks and mortar would have to offer something else to keep you as a customer. This is why competition is good for the consumer.


----------



## phuviano

Hey Joker Eh, since your in the GTA. Go to Merkle Camera. They'll beat anybody's prices in Canada. You have to bargain with me though. I always get lower prices than photoprice.ca. Aden usually has the lowest prices, but Merkle Camera will always beat their prices. You have to ready to buy though. You can't try to make a deal, and come back the next day, and try to bargain again.

What camera are you looking at?


----------



## Joker Eh

phuviano said:


> Hey Joker Eh, since your in the GTA. Go to Merkle Camera. They'll beat anybody's prices in Canada. You have to bargain with me though. I always get lower prices than photoprice.ca. Aden usually has the lowest prices, but Merkle Camera will always beat their prices. You have to ready to buy though. You can't try to make a deal, and come back the next day, and try to bargain again.
> 
> What camera are you looking at?


Ok. I will keep them in mind. I told my wife I would wait until year end to look at buying a camera. Since we are putting in new windows and may look at finishing the basement and also we are expecting. Also I told her prices should go down around year end as she thinks I am crazy in spending this money. 

I am looking at 
D610 Body
24-70 f2.8 Lens
70-200 f4 Lens


----------



## phuviano

Joker Eh said:


> I am looking at
> D610 Body
> 24-70 f2.8 Lens
> 70-200 f4 Lens


I had a d600 with a 70-200 f4. The lens is amazing. The AF does suffer in low light a little.


----------



## Joker Eh

phuviano said:


> I had a d600 with a 70-200 f4. The lens is amazing. The AF does suffer in low light a little.


Do you know if that lens compatible with this teleconverter? Nikon only lists the 70-200 f2.8 but not the f4 version. I am wondering if this is just a page error. More hoping.

AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III from Nikon


----------



## eMacMan

Joker Eh said:


> Do you know if that lens compatible with this teleconverter? Nikon only lists the 70-200 f2.8 but not the f4 version. I am wondering if this is just a page error. More hoping.
> 
> AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III from Nikon


I experimented quite a bit with teleconverters back in the days of film, never purchased but always hopeful. There was always a 2 ƒ-stop light loss, plus loss of contrast, and there were always sharpness issues as well. Thanks to PhotoShop the loss of contrast can be overcome and might even prove useful. 

The light loss is inherent to the device. Typically an ƒ2.8 zoom would be ƒ4 at the long end of the lens add in the converter and you are shooting ƒ8 wide open. If you are talking about an ƒ4 version of the lens, that would be ƒ5.6 at the long end or ƒ11 wide open through a 2x teleconverter. Expect to be using an ISO of 400 or faster particularly if you need to use high shutter speeds either to provide additional shake compensation or to stop action. Add in a polarizing filter.........

As to loss of sharpness can't say if these guys have improved to the point of being useful or not. Would love to hear from someone whether they are still a waste of money.


----------



## Joker Eh

eMacMan said:


> I experimented quite a bit with teleconverters back in the days of film, never purchased but always hopeful. There was always a 2 ƒ-stop light loss, plus loss of contrast, and there were always sharpness issues as well. Thanks to PhotoShop the loss of contrast can be overcome and might even prove useful.
> 
> The light loss is inherent to the device. Typically an ƒ2.8 zoom would be ƒ4 at the long end of the lens add in the converter and you are shooting ƒ8 wide open. If you are talking about an ƒ4 version of the lens, that would be ƒ5.6 at the long end or ƒ11 wide open through a 2x teleconverter. Expect to be using an ISO of 400 or faster particularly if you need to use high shutter speeds either to provide additional shake compensation or to stop action. Add in a polarizing filter.........
> 
> As to loss of sharpness can't say if these guys have improved to the point of being useful or not. Would love to hear from someone whether they are still a waste of money.


i agree but thought I could live with those instead of paying approx $10K for a 400-600 lens. :greedy:


----------



## eMacMan

Joker Eh said:


> i agree but thought I could live with those instead of paying approx $10K for a 400-600 lens. :greedy:


Yes an interesting dilemma. Again in the bad old days there were excellent aftermarket lenses at a fraction of the cost. Generally the optics were often as good as the brand names, the difference was that say a Nikon lens would stand up to years of use and abuse as a primary lens whereas a Tamron was intended more for that occasional moon shot.

I wonder why the need for such a long lens and how often you intend to use it? 

I remember in my early years lugging around a 200mm Nikon lens. When I did use it, it proved impossible to hand hold, thus adding a lightweight tripod to my gear. Eventually I sold the lens as I just did not use it or want to cart it around.

I had a friend who was into auto racing for him a 300 mm lens was indispensable.


----------



## Joker Eh

eMacMan said:


> Yes an interesting dilemma. Again in the bad old days there were excellent aftermarket lenses at a fraction of the cost. Generally the optics were often as good as the brand names, the difference was that say a Nikon lens would stand up to years of use and abuse as a primary lens whereas a Tamron was intended more for that occasional moon shot.
> 
> I wonder why the need for such a long lens and how often you intend to use it?
> 
> I remember in my early years lugging around a 200mm Nikon lens. When I did use it, it proved impossible to hand hold, thus adding a lightweight tripod to my gear. Eventually I sold the lens as I just did not use it or want to cart it around.
> 
> I had a friend who was into auto racing for him a 300 mm lens was indispensable.


I never thought about having one until I put up a bird feeder in the backyard. Now my backyard is not big and maybe 20-25 feet long. But even with the 200 mm lens I have now it is not close enough to get a nice shot of the birds on the feeder. The 200 mm lens I have is a DX lens so you can't get a teleconverter for it at least anything which would produce quality.


----------



## eMacMan

Interesting. The 360mm maximum zoom on the Kodak point and shoot does a reasonably good job with the bird feeder and the entire camera was under $200 brand new. Our feeder is about 18-20 feet away from the place we shoot from.

Since the special lens is just too expensive, the point and shoot with a built in long lens is going to deliver better quality, than a DSLR shackled by a teleconverter, and the cost is reasonable. I think Panasonic, Fuji, Nikon, Canon and Olympus all currently make cameras that might fit the bill here. Just a thought. 

Not sure if Panasonic has changed a lot but I found their various menus difficult to navigate. 

FWIW the wide open aperture at the 360mm equivalent is ƒ4.8. I think this would be consistent with the various similar cameras.


----------



## phuviano

Joker Eh said:


> Do you know if that lens compatible with this teleconverter? Nikon only lists the 70-200 f2.8 but not the f4 version. I am wondering if this is just a page error. More hoping.
> 
> AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III from Nikon


From my knowledge, all the modern nikon TC's are compatible. I've seen random shots with all 3 (1.4, 1.7, 2.0 TC's). The 1.4 gives the best IQ. The 2.0 gives the worst IQ. You can find image using google, if you look hard enough.

Like ehmac suggested. Maybe a 300mm prime would be a better choice.

Fyi, a 70-200 f4 with a 2x TC, will become a 140-400 f8.

Another alternative is cropping, but you can only crop so much until IQ suffers. The d610/d600 sensor has great image quality. You can crop quite a bit, while retaining IQ.


----------



## Todd

Joker Eh said:


> Do you know if that lens compatible with this teleconverter? Nikon only lists the 70-200 f2.8 but not the f4 version. I am wondering if this is just a page error. More hoping.
> 
> AF-S Teleconverter TC-20E III from Nikon


The Nikon 70-200mm f/4 is newer than that TC-20E III so testing likely hasn't been completed yet or documentation not updated.

The user manual does list the 200-400mm f/4 lens as compatible, which is also an f/4 zoom.

The Canon equivalent teleconverter is compatible with the Canon 70-200mm f/4 zoom lenses so we can can assume that Nikon can accomplish the same.

Autofocus is also an important attribute to test. Using a teleconverter reduces the number of autofocus points available to you. Using a TC-20E with an f/4 lens will likely result in only the center autofocus points being usable. Not an issue with a steady subject but more challenging with something that moves.

Rent and experiment to learn for yourself.


----------



## Lawrence

I've bought all my camera equipment and lenses from Henry's eBay store,
Including a refurbished Nikon D7100 for $1050. Taxes and delivery included.
I've never had any problems with Henry's.

Wish I hadn't missed that $99. Camera grip that they had on sale in June,
What a deal that was, Regular price was $330. and it was a Nikon brand D7100 battery grip too.


----------

