# Buying camera equipment from Amazon.com?



## FrimpyEIBW (Mar 17, 2008)

Has anyone ever done it? Are they reliable? And, is it gray market?

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-12-3MP-...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1205736962&sr=8-2

I am thinking about getting this, but I want some feedback on Amazon before I buy.


----------



## Yahoozy (Mar 17, 2008)

personally i prefer B&H Photo for all my online stuff
but Amazon is a good provider of... well... pretty much anything other than groceries so they're a good option too


----------



## BYoung (Mar 17, 2008)

I have ordered a few filters and my Opteka Battery Grip from amazon.com. It was from one of them 3rd party people they have not from Amazon themselves. But it got here in good time and everything was great. Oh ya the seller was Cameta Camera.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 17, 2008)

Do you really want the 18-200? You've already got 2 midrange streetsweepers, do you really need a third?


----------



## FrimpyEIBW (Mar 17, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Do you really want the 18-200? You've already got 2 midrange streetsweepers, do you really need a third?


 
I need to edit my sig. The 18-135 is a great lens, but it isn't a VR lens. I'm interested in the VR 18-200 because I kind of get tired of switching to the 70-300. I do alot of nature and landscape photography, as well as portraits.


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 17, 2008)

Amazon is just a hub for sellers.  I'm not certain if there are any added benefits or safety measures that you get when buying from them.  Read the small printing...they probably claim no responsibility for problems, and just refer you to the selling company.

I would personally prefer to buy directly from a good store...like B&H.


----------



## Stranger (Mar 17, 2008)

I have used amazon often and for many different items (some expensive, some cheap)

I just pay attention to who exactly it is i am buying from. I trust tigerdirect, adorama, b&h even does selling through amazon.

Just look at who it is coming from but i have never had a problem


----------



## Iron Flatline (Mar 17, 2008)

I've had problems with Adorama via Amazon. It is virtually impossible to get a refund or a correction on a bad order - they each point at each other. It _should _be Adorama who corrects the problem, but I have had several bad experiences with them, that being one of them. Either make sure it's actually Amazon (no problem then) or B&H.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 18, 2008)

FrimpyEIBW said:


> I need to edit my sig. The 18-135 is a great lens, but it isn't a VR lens. I'm interested in the VR 18-200 because I kind of get tired of switching to the 70-300. I do alot of nature and landscape photography, as well as portraits.



If you do alot of landscape, a 10-20 or 12-24 would be $700 of lens better spent than the 18-200. You've got a 70-300 if you want background separation. 

If you're looking for quality, the 18-200 is not it, I would never consider using it as a primary lens for landscape and portraiture because of the distortion of it, and the thing is _really_ soft at parts throughout the range, especially at 135mm-portraiture range. It's worthless if you can't get critical focus on the eyes because it's so soft.

I dunno, it's your money, it's your hobby, It just seems redundant with the 24-120 plus the 18-135, you don't need VR from 18-24mm, and seems as if you're buying it just to be lazy and you're willing to sacrifice quality and potential versatility as a result. 

Just such a waste of a D300..If you're going to be using it like a point-n-shoot, buy a point-n-shoot. 

Waste money on the craptacular 18-200 when you could buy the (superb) 17-55 f/2.8 off craigslist for only a couple hundred more. Even the 18-70 is a better option!


----------



## NJMAN (Mar 18, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> I've had problems with Adorama via Amazon. It is virtually impossible to get a refund or a correction on a bad order - they each point at each other. It _should _be Adorama who corrects the problem, but I have had several bad experiences with them, that being one of them. Either make sure it's actually Amazon (no problem then) or B&H.


 
I buy directly from adorama all the time, and have never had a problem.  All amazon is good for in my opinion is to do price comparisons of products from different companies.  Amazon gets paid a percentage when you click on a company's product link from their site.  You can just google and do your own price comparisons.  If you deal directly with adorama, b&h, or any other reputable vendor, they have no choice but to be held accountable for themselves.




Sw1tchFX said:


> If you do alot of landscape, a 10-20 or 12-24 would be $700 of lens better spent than the 18-200. You've got a 70-300 if you want background separation.
> 
> If you're looking for quality, the 18-200 is not it, I would never consider using it as a primary lens for landscape and portraiture because of the distortion of it, and the thing is _really_ soft at parts throughout the range, especially at 135mm-portraiture range. It's worthless if you can't get critical focus on the eyes because it's so soft.
> 
> ...


 
I agree with this line of thinking.  

Also, if you are worried about portraits, get a prime 50mm f/1.8.  Its inexpensive and has very good sharpness at f/2.8 for the money.


----------



## Mystwalker (Mar 19, 2008)

When you buy from Amazon.com and they do not do the shipping, Amazon has no way to "track" the shipment unless the shipper (Cameta, 42nd, B&H, Adorama) informs Amazon.

Even if you log onto the shipper's website, they will not recognize their own order number from Amazon - at least Adorama nor B&H do.

That being the case, you are better off getting it directly from Adorama, B&H, Cameta, etc ... when pricing is the same, I prefer B&H.


----------



## FrimpyEIBW (Mar 19, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> If you do alot of landscape, a 10-20 or 12-24 would be $700 of lens better spent than the 18-200. You've got a 70-300 if you want background separation.
> 
> If you're looking for quality, the 18-200 is not it, I would never consider using it as a primary lens for landscape and portraiture because of the distortion of it, and the thing is _really_ soft at parts throughout the range, especially at 135mm-portraiture range. It's worthless if you can't get critical focus on the eyes because it's so soft.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not stupid. I would never use an 18-200 for portraits. And, I do know how to use a digital SLR. I have 2 of them already. I want the 18-200 for when I go out shooting stocks...landscape, and wildlife. The 24-120 is going to go on the D300, the 18-135 on the D80, and the 18-200 on the D70s, which my girlfriend will be learning on. I'll also still be using the D70s when I go on lighthouse excursions, or on sailboats because the D70s is the one I'd be least heartbroken if something happened to it. Make more sense now?


----------

