| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 4/3 |
| 2008/12/29-2009/1/3 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52302 Activity:high |
12/29 Hello, I am a film/digital SLR shooter [i.e. I care about DoF control]
but I am considering buying a Canon G10 to have something small I can
carry around all the time and take into "hazardous conditions" where
I would not bring my SLRs [water, climbing, other hands free/bag free
situations]. Any thoughts on the Canon G10 ... limitations an SLR
person would care about? Alternative/comparable models to consider?
Poor design/interface issues? [dont like laggy response, bad controls].
It sounds like some reports of noise above ISO 400? It's not super-
small, but is it "small enough" to carry in a pocket? [I know I'll
have to go try to find one]. I have a trip coming up and it looks
like you can get it for around $400 incl tax+shipping, so the timing
seems right unless there is something spectacular around the horizon
[Canon occasionally makes some announcements in Feb]. One technical
question: is there any way to use a polarizer with a camera like this?
I think this camera should do nicely shooting static outdoor scenes in
bright conditions, but how does it do shooting people indoors in the
evening/night? Also, is there some kind of lens cover [analogous to a
sky/uv filter on an SLR lens] that is recommended for these kinds of
camera [for protection, not contrast control]. Thanks.
\_ Obviously, you don't have the right SLR gears. The pro-series
DSLRs are well built and weather-proof. For biggest bang for
bucks I highly recommend the Canon 5D Mark II with 24-70mm
f/2.8L IS, which is superior over the Nikon D700 with 24-70mm f/2.8
*without* VR. It'll help you build a lot of muscle and look cool.
The D700 is much better weather-sealed though not as good as
the 1Ds or D3. At any rate, pro-series lenses and bodies are
weather-sealed, appropriate for rough conditions. ISO 6400 on
the D700 is the same as 1600 on my XSi.
\_ Ever considered Olympus E-420 with 25mm (50mm equivalent) pancake?
At the moment, it's the smallest DSLR in the world.
\_ That's an interesting suggestion. The price is comparable,
the weight is only 10% more than the G10 ... and it uses CF
instread of SD, so storage is compatible with by DSLRs. The
problem is it appears fairly significantly larger and is not
really plausible as an unbiquitous pocket camera. The form
factor of the Canon SD 980 is good, but it only goes up to 36mm
wide. Here is a question: is it remotely feasable to carry *any*
of these camera with 2.5 - 3in view screeen without a pouch/
bag, i.e. in a pant/fleece/jacket pocket.
\_ I carry the SD710 in a pocket all the time. -tom
\_ What kind of SLR do you use? What kind of post processing
software (white balance, exposure, etc) do you use?
\_ In the last 10 years: N90, D70, F4, F5, D1x and limited D2.
I am not very sophisticated about post-processing beyond
crop, sharp, and some limited color adjustments.
\_ I use a Canon PowerShot S5IS for this purpose. You can buy a
lens tube adapter which will let you use standard 58mm filters;
the G10 also has that option. The S5IS has pretty poor performance
at ISO400 and above; I really try not to use it for indoor/night
shooting except for snapshots. There are some lens distortion
issues at the far ends, but they're not too bad. Having the
super-zoom in a small package is really nice. I've taken more
outstanding photos with my S5IS than with my SLR, mostly because
I always have the S5IS with me and I only carry the SLR when I'm
specifically doing photography. -tom
\_ What kind of SLR do you have and what post processing
software do you use tom?
\_ Canon XSi, mostly Photoshop Elements. -tom
\_ Totally awesome pictures below, tom. What kind of
lenses do you have, what are your favorites?
\_ Well, like I said, most of those shots were
with my Fuji FinePix 4900, Canon PowerShot S2IS
or S5IS. In fact I think everything in the
first set was shot on those; most of them were
taken before I had an SLR at all. So far, all I
have on the XSi is the kit lens (18-55mm IS) and
an f/1.4 50mm prime. (Covers the greatest shortcomings
of the S5IS, low-light performance and depth of field.)
Next is some kind of zoom. -tom
\_ You're an out-dated fart but use modern (non-old-fart
Nikon-brand) cameras. Good job.
\_ Please post some links to your outstanding S5 and SLR photos.
\_ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tholub/sets/72157594564966878
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tholub/sets/72157604346422780
-tom
\_ The S5 looks like a so-so choice for somebody with an SLR.
It's large, slow, I think electronic viewfinders are terrible
and doesnt really have wide angle, which is largely what
cameras with small sensors are good at. This seems clearly
a camera you either have to carry in a bag or around your
neck, not in a pocket.
(I have a strong negative reaction to these type of cameras
after using an awful, large clunky Coolpix with a big lens
and EVF).
Of course I dont know what were the other options on the market
at the time and what were your non-negotiable parameters.
No offense but this camera seems like a weird gimmick with
very long zoom as its distinguishing positive feature
[the "stalker lens" I use is a 200-400mm stabilized lens, which
on a digital has a 600mm field of view ... and this is of fairly
limited use ... I wouldnt call the picture I get from it
"outstanding", although you do get something, such as when
illegally shooting at concerts].
The one real win with the G10 seems to be *4 stop* IS at 150mm,
so I can see zoom being a strength. My problem is the strong
point of the G10 are the kinds of pictures I care the most
about and am the most willing to haul around the SLR gear and
tripods and filters. I dont think there really is a solution
in the market place for "point and shoot" priced and sized
camera I can carry around all the time to shoot people not too
far away with depth of field control.
\_ I think you're right that there isn't a pocket camera that
can perform like an SLR. But the most important camera
feature is that you have it with you. Last year I took
a trip to Belize and lost my S5IS to a crappy underwater
bag during the first week. I spent the rest of the trip
shooting with a pocket camera (Canon SD710) and got some
outstanding shots. The less featureful camera limits you,
but still can do a whole lot with it. People do great
photography with Polaroids and LOMOs. -tom
\_ Panasonic LX3. No question about it. 24mm f/2 on the wide end,
f/2.8 on the long end which give you some degree of DoF control.
relatively wide shutter speed selections, RAW capabilities,
hot-shoe, and 1cm minimum focus distance. The optics on this
p&s camera is for some reason a couple notch better than any of
the competitors. i would argue that it is a non-gimic,
photographer's compact camera kngharv
\_ OP here: this is an excellent suggestion given my parameters
[pocket size/weight, faster lens etc] at a comparable price.
I don't follow the "offbrands", so I was not very aware of
what the non-Canon best of breed options were. Thanks.
Question: at the long end, with this camera wide open [60mm
field of view, at f/2.8], aren't you getting the 35mm DoF of
f/8 - f/11? So do portraits look reasonable in terms of out of
focus background?
p.s. good to see somebody opting out of the megapixel arms race.
\_ I thought this was a good G10 v. LX3 comparison:
http://bythom.com/compactchallenge.htm
\_ I just noticed the LX3 doesn't have an optical view finder.
This may be a deal killer for me, at least at the moment.
I may end up buying both the LX3 and G10.
\_ Excellent link my friend. As a semi-pro (someone
who makes 1/8 a living by taking wedding pics), I
don't use anything other than f/2.8 or wider, DSLR
or not. Lumix LX3 fits that profile. I'm surprised
that they consider the lens "wide-angle". Wide-angle
is really 10.5mm on APS-C or 14mm on full frame.
\- i'm not totally sure what you are saying above.
f/2.8 on one of those micro sensors is not
f/2.8 on something like a 35mm portrait lens
when it comes to depth of field produced.
i dont know how much agreement over the focal length
where wide angle starts, but everyone i know would
consider 24mm [w.r.t. 35mm] to be shooting wide.
the 17-18mm range begin the ultra wides ...
beyond that you get into the rectilinear UUWs and
fisheyes.
Here are Ken Rockwell's ranges and classifications:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
[search for "definitions" and see the tables]
\_ What is the 24mm equivalent to a "normal" 35mm film?
\_ 24-60mm equivalent. Not as much as the legendary
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, but certainly a lot cheaper.
PS, Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 sucks ass and costs more.
Why is Nikon even competing these days?
\_ I'm not a Canon expert, and I didnt look carefully for any
hidden gotchas, but this looks like a pretty great deal for
anybody looking to get a dSLR:
Canon 40D: $319:
http://soniccameras.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=4554
So if you can live with 1.6x crop factor and dont need new features
like LiveView ...
\_ http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Sonic_Cameras
\_ Are you looking to switch from Nikon? |
| 4/3 |
|
| www.flickr.com/photos/tholub/sets/72157594564966878 Slideshow Guest Passes let you share your photos that aren't public. Anyone can see your public photos anytime, whether they're a Flickr member or not. If you want to share photos marked as friends, family or private, use a Guest Pass. If you're sharing photos from a set, you can create a Guest Pass that includes any of your photos marked as friends, family, or private. If you're sharing your entire photostream, you can create a Guest Pass that includes photos marked as friends or family (but not your private photos). |
| www.flickr.com/photos/tholub/sets/72157604346422780 Slideshow Guest Passes let you share your photos that aren't public. Anyone can see your public photos anytime, whether they're a Flickr member or not. If you want to share photos marked as friends, family or private, use a Guest Pass. If you're sharing photos from a set, you can create a Guest Pass that includes any of your photos marked as friends, family, or private. If you're sharing your entire photostream, you can create a Guest Pass that includes photos marked as friends or family (but not your private photos). |
| bythom.com/compactchallenge.htm The Coolpix, PowerShot, Lumix Challenge You forced me to do it. The Back Story I've been harping on compact cameras for some time. We serious shooters want a compact camera we can carry with us all the time that does a respectable job with image quality, and has enough flexibility to be useful in most casual shooting situations we encounter. The problem, of course, is that the sensors used on most compacts are ridiculously small. An FX sensor has 864 square millimeters of light collection area, a DX sensor has about 372 square millimeters, and the typical compact sensor measures in at a measly 43 square millimeters. It's been a surprise to many that compact sensors have managed as well as they have. The cameras we'll be discussing today have photosites on the order of 2 microns across. Not too many years back most engineers would have said that such a sensor would have been been beyond the quantum limit (ie shot noise limited). Somewhere along the way we broke limits that were once considered sacred. As this has always been a Nikon-related site, many of my reviews and comments made years ago were regarding Coolpix models. Back in the olden days of digital, some of the 3mp Coolpix models did indeed perform impressively compared to their brethren. But somewhere in the progression from the Coolpix 5700 to the 8800, Nikon seemed to start to go off course. And the 8800 itself was the end of the "serious" Coolpix models. Sure, Nikon made some more Coolpix models they called serious and even gave the P designation to in order to indicate that they were "professional." But the cameras themselves, such as the P4, were serious steps backwards in almost every respect. Moreover, we lost the ability to shoot raw files with Coolpix models, meaning that we couldn't get in and try to correct the data's deficiencies ourselves. Each subsequent P model was looked at by Nikon shooters as "maybe this is the one," and each was rejected. Meanwhile, Canon continued making serious top compacts with the G line. Each generation seemed to get a little better and better, and slowly but surely Nikon's reign in having "the top compact" not only came to end, but Nikon was left in the dust. Frequent readers of this site know that I switched to a Leica D-Lux 3 and Ricoh GX-100 for my compact camera needs. But I learned how to shoot both at base ISO in raw and coax very good images out of them, especially since both have superb lenses. Moreover, both companies (Panasonic in the Leica's case) produced camera designs that were very photographer centric. The controls I wanted were there, easy to use in the heat of shooting, and very, very direct. Meanwhile, the Coolpix line went GameBoy in control design. Coolpix AF performance was terrible, shutter lag was endemic, and even the lenses seemed to go downhill. article" there really wasn't a compact I'd call well rounded. All had enough defects and liabilities that I had to be very careful to work around them. This summer, all the players renewed their cameras, and Nikon finally seemed to want to get back in the game, announcing the P6000 with a set of features that looked very good on paper. Until you looked at the fine print: raw files weren't traditional Nikon raw files. Mac users lose raw support with Nikon's software, Windows users get limited raw support with Nikon's software. Moreover, when questioned about this, the company was silent and let the Internet fora just blast them (including many posts by myself). Still, they are supporting advertisements in newspapers in the US that tought its "raw" capability despite only shipping a modest Windows conversion support (ViewNX). Fortunately, Adobe and others came along and supported the P6000's unique raw format, so we have some standard tools that allow us access to the raw data. Why Adobe could do it almost immediately and Nikon is still having trouble delivering all of their limited support is a question for another day. Bottom line: Nikon screwed up big time with the launch of the P6000. So much so that I originally wrote "boycott the P6000" and said I wouldn't buy one. However, with all the new compacts and the constant email demands of me to talk about the current state of compacts, I have acquiesced and purchased several of this latest round to see where we stand. That's where I'm headed with this article, so keep reading. Copyright 2008 Thom Hogan But first, let's meet our contenders. For this quick test we've got the Canon PowerShot G10 (back left in photo), Nikon Coolpix P6000 (middle camera in photo), and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 (right front camera in photo; While testing these, I was comparing against results with my older Leica D-Lux 3 (also sold under the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 name), my Ricoh GX-100, and my Sigma DP1. I'll make some peripheral comments about those cameras as we progress, but my main comments are about the primary three. They all have macro capability, image stabilization, built-in flashes with hot shoes, and a host of other similar features. The bottom line is that they all have relatively rich feature sets and lots of user (manual) control ability. Thus, there really are only three things we have to talk about: 1 What's the difference in image quality? Are any good enough for a serious shooter to carry around all the time? Do any of them get in the way of the serious shooter who wants to control the camera? And do any of the common features between them (eg autofocus) stand out as better on one than the other? I'll give you the short answer to each: 1 The Canon has the best image quality at the restricted ISO range you should use. The Nikon and the Panasonic aren't slouches, but both have issues. Indeed, if you look at that table closely, you'll see that the Nikon has a bunch of "last generation" choices and really only the low weight and built-in GPS are truly attractive. If you can't guess already that the Canon and Panasonic will stay in my arsenal and the Nikon won't, well, go back and re-read all that. Or, if you want more detail, plow into the full detail on these three subjects below. We'll do this out of order, starting with the features: Feature Sets Copyright 2008 Thom Hogan Copyright 2008 Thom Hogan The Panasonic is probably the most basic of the three. If the lens didn't stick out so far it would be the smallest of the three. This last bit is a little more important than it first sounds, as the aperture range gives you a little more chance to fight diffraction impacts and produce a bit of depth of field isolation. The Panasonic has a not-quite one stop advantage in the lens over the others at equivalent focal lengths, something not to be ignored. The lens itself is a Leica design, and as that suggests, the lens is very good, with excellent edge-to-edge sharpness and only one real problem I'll eventually get to later in the review. The 3200 ISO capability is a joke (heck, all the ISOs above about 400 on these cameras are essentially unusable for serious work), but note the 60 second limit on the shutter speed. Panasonic has tried to make a flexible camera here, giving you a wider range of exposure options than the other two present. In practice, that's probably wider than it's truly capable of, but I like the fact that they haven't arbitrarily cut off options here. The 16:9 aspect ratio choice is a love it or hate it thing. The 10mp size is just enough lower than the Canon and Nikon to potentially show up as resolution differences in large prints. But if you never output beyond 8x10", it probably isn't an issue. Copyright 2008 Thom Hogan Copyright 2008 Thom Hogan The Canon's standout feature is also its lens, though for different reasons. The 28-140mm range is a big one, taking you from a basic wide angle through what in the film days used to be a solid telephoto point. If you used a G9, you'll miss the 200mm reach, but you'll love the 28mm breadth. This generation of the G has become a better close-in performer, and I personally appreciate that. If those pixels are even halfway usable, the G10 obviously can be my substitute for when I don't want to carry my full system with me. On the other hand, the primary negative featu... |
| www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm Canon Reviews Introduction Ultrawide lenses are the most difficult lenses to use well. Ultrawides are for getting yourself, and therefore the viewer, right smack into the middle of something. If you can't or won't get close, leave the ultrawide at home. Properly used, ultrawides grab your viewer and yank him into the middle of your situation. Ultrawide lenses are for getting close and bringing the viewer into the photo, not for fitting a subject into a photo. For newsmen, ultrawides are for jamming into the face of an enraged wino brandishing a feces-covered broken bottle to exaggerate his crazed anger and crude weapon. Most people use ultrawides too sheepishly, and get crummy results with tiny subjects dwarfed in the middle of an open frame. Ultrawides require you to get very close and personal to anything you are shooting. Even a fraction of an inch (or cm) will make a huge difference in your composition, so you need to be very deliberate with your movement. If you use them properly, you'll be rewarded with dynamic images. I've discovered that regardless of how many lenses I use, and however many photos I make on a trip, the ones I ultimately love the most are always the ones made with the widest lens I brought. How Wide is Wide All this becomes more important as your ultrawide gets wider. For 20mm lenses you ought to pay at least a little attention. For 17mm lenses you'll need most of this, and with 14mm lenses you need to know all this, otherwise the only good photos you'll probably get will be from dumb luck. Everything here applies to all lenses, however normal and tele lenses don't exhibit the crazy properties I'll be describing. The wider you get, the crazier things become and the more attentive you need to be. DX and 16x) is your widest lens, you won't see or need much of what I'll discuss here. When you get to 20mm lenses (12mm on DX and 16x), things start to get a little weird. pros and nuts, and the smaller format cameras are for normal people. I put these figures on the chart, but only time will tell if real ultra-ultra wide lenses ever get built for the smaller formats. Any links are to lenses which cover some of the nuttier focal lengths listed. Ultrawides don't distort technically, but they distort artistically. Ultrawides exaggerate the relationship between near and far. Ultrawides stretch out objects on the sides and the corners. Ultrawides exaggerate any slight misalignment of your subject and camera. Getting it all in Most beginners, myself included for 15 years, think wide-angle lenses are for "getting it all in." They think that the wider the lens (or stitched panorama), the more encompassing, impressive, huge and all-enveloping will be the result. I don't have any really bad examples of "getting it all in" shots, so this one, made in good light, will have to suffice. Beginners know that wider lenses get more in, and so the pictures must be better. All that most people get with ultrawide lenses are parking lots in the bottom half of their image, and nothing anywhere except for the center. Worse, ultra-wides see all the distracting junk on the side of your subject and weaken the shot. The shot above is made in the middle of the Mojave Desert, so there isn't anything on the sides. The Easy Way The best photos most users get with ultrawides are made inside large spaces, like Grand Central Station or stately homes. These highly-detailed spaces usually make for fun photos regardless of where you put or point the camera. These photos are fine, but let's learn how to get great photos everywhere. Scale Painters understand scale, but few photographers do. Scale means paying attention to the size at which an image will be printed as you're creating it. Images have entirely different meanings when printed at different sizes. The same photo printed at 20x30" (50x75cm) is kind of weird. The reason photos of the Grand Canyon usually lack the "you are there" feeling is because they are only printed a few feet wide at most. IMAX movie as shot from a moving helicopter, and the audience feels it. Panoramic stitching is making things worse today because anyone, even with most Canon point-and-shoots which come with free software, can make an image with nothing in it. Let's face it: when you print that panorama at the same size as a normal image, doesn't it seem to lack the "you are there" feeling you used to get before easy panoramas? If you want to "get it all in," you'd better be prepared to print huge. If you aren't going to print huge, the only thing an exotic wide lens or panorama does is make the things in your picture too darn small. Even if you print 20 feet (6m) tall with ultrawide shots, you're still a long way away from making good images. Scale is only one of many basic elements of creating an image. Composition: Impact in Normal-Sized Images What makes a great image doesn't change with what lens you use. What changes with an ultra-wide lens is how much more difficult it is to get your subject framed the way you want it. Most people would be perfectly happy with this shot, but look at the sides. This shot really only has anything going on in the central square portion of the frame. I walked into this place, said "wow," and popped off a few without thinking. I put the bottom of a column in the lower right, but I didn't get it to the bottom of my frame. I wasted the bottom inch on the right, and the entire left side is almost all devoid of anything meaningful. Just like everything in life, if something isn't adding to the composition, it's taking away. The water thing was only 10 feet away, but it may as well have been a mile. Print this shot 20 feet tall and it will be impressive, but how can we make it stronger in the sizes we really use? The hardest part with ultra-wides is getting close enough. For this shot, I was leaning over the edge of the fountain to get close enough to the astronomical device to use it as a compositional element. Of course this is all hand-held: a tripod would have gotten in the way, not worked well in the fountain, not allowed me the precision I needed in positioning the camera, and would have gotten me thrown out. Not that this is a great shot, since the elements on each side are each fighting to pull your eyes out of the frame in opposite directions, but these snaps show how I have to approach every scene with an ultrawide. Watch your edges and make sure your subject fills the frame. I'm always amazed at just how much wasted space happens at the edge of my images unless I work at paying attention to the sides of my finder with a 14mm lens. If I get lazy, all I get is a smaller subject in the middle with loads of space between it and the frame edges. I wind up cropping, which just eliminated the whole point of using an ultrawide lens. Position With longer lenses, the direction in which you point the camera is the most critical element. Even a fraction of an inch makes a huge difference in composition. I'm very serious: as I hand-hold my camera inches away from something, my breathing changes my composition. In the shot above, I'm only inches away from the naked lady. Those rails only adjust in two directions, not all three, so you'll need a tripod with a geared-rise. Ultrawides aren't like wide, normal and tele lenses where an inch or two makes no difference. Used up close, a half-inch can make or break a photo with an ultra-ultra wide. Watch your edges I don't look at the center of my image when composing. I have to keep looking at the edges to make sure things are close enough. When fine-tuning balance, I look away and compose out of the corner of my eye. Personally, if there are lines to be had, I seem to like having one leading in from the lower left corner. I prefer to have the lines enter from the corner itself, not one of the sides. Even I'm surprised at how I consistently see the world this way. Parking in Vegas Somewhere in Las Vegas, Nevada, 29 January 2008. Inclusion and Exclusion Painting is an art of inclusion, meaning that something only gets into the painting if the painter paints it that way. You can always tell a sloppy painter who's done watercolors from a photo because of al... |
| soniccameras.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=4554 We're reducing prices on an unprecedented number of items. Free LCD Digital Photo Frame Keychain with any Package Purchase! Free Case,Free Tripod,Free Lens cleaning kit with any camera or camcorder Order! Canon EOS 40D Digital Camera Body With 1-Year USA Warranty SC# ca40d This item qualifies for FREE SHIPPING! Canon EOS 40D Digital Camera Body With Diamond Package This item qualifies for FREE SHIPPING! Canon 430EX EOS Speedlite Flash With 1-Year USA Warranty This item qualifies for FREE SHIPPING! Canon 580EX II Shoe Mount Speedlite Flash With 1-Year USA Warranty This item qualifies for FREE SHIPPING! EF-530 DG Super Shoe Mount Professional Flash for iTTL Digital SLRs for Canon This item qualifies for FREE SHIPPING! Canon Remote Switch RS-80N3 for Canon EOS Cameras This item qualifies for FREE SHIPPING! Customer Testimonials Thank you for the excellant service and professional handling of my recent order of a Canon GL2. |
| www.resellerratings.com/store/Sonic_Cameras Click Here to See the Profile for HernandezE25 1/2/09 11:57 AM I placed an order with this company after finding quite a "deal" on-line for a new Canon Lens. I was SO excited to find it on an "end of year clearance" sale. However, days later I got an e-mail asking me to confirm the security numbers on the back of my credit card. Lucky for me, I didn't have it with me (my husband had it) so I was unable to give them the numbers. They they told me the lens I ordered was discontinued, but they could give me an even better lens for the same price. They said my husband would need to call them back and give them the security numbers and they'd offer the new lens to him. That is when I "googled" their company and found all the poor ratings and that they were a scam. Needless to say, I'll be watching my credit card statements to make sure no charges appear. I placed an online order for a Nikon 80-400 VR lens for $949! then I get a phone call on Jan 2, 2009 to 'confirm' the order. I called my VISA card company and they immediately canceled my card. I bet they work out of one of those NY camera stores in times square or something, scamming people all over the world. they are the only truly reputable store with the lowest prices. Click Here to See the Profile for happycake 12/31/08 6:41 PM I *thought* I had completed an order with them for a Canon Rebel XTi w/ 2 lenses for under $600. When I called tonight (NYE) to check on my order, at about 6:30pm. I was put on hold for 15 minutes, then a guy with a Russian accent came on the line and said "Thanks for calling The Camera Store." I guess they've chosen a sufficiently vague brand because "Sonic Cameras" is prob a front for their more constant concern... So the Russian tells me that I'd made my order with American Express, and they don't take Amex. Amex provides top-notch fraud protection, which is why I use them. After several minutes waiting, I looked at my watch and lo and behold, it was now after 7pm (which is when their "call center" closes. The reviews, as you might have seen right here, are nothing short of SCARY. Luckily, I do not recall proving my security number from my card, but jst to be safe, I plan to cancel this card. I'm very upset about this hassle because now it means I have to find a new vendor for my camera, cancel my card, and wait for a new one. PS - I have every right to complain about these low-down, good for-nothing Russians. You see, I am half Russian, and a significant portion of my family are low-down, nasty people with little/no class. When I saw all of the deplorable consumer reviews I almost puked on my computer. I had called them directly because I never heard of the company. They did bait and switched me on the batteries in the end my total was $4200. Like an idiot I gave them my cc # and agreed to the sale. All day I sat around thinking something was wrong so I googled there company name and BAM thousands of the same reviews. Thank god it was Sunday they had not charged my card yet and I cancelled my CC # as lost. I will never make a big online purchase again without checking in to the company. It is really sad that these jokers think they can scam us. There are plenty of great online retailers out there that have thousands of good reviews. Why is it so hard for Sonic Camera to realize that customer service is what keeps you in business not scamming the consumers. com you are the worst and I will make sure anybody that comes in contact with me I will make sure they know who NOT to buy products from! After placing the order, the sales rep told him that the package did not include a battery, and they sold for $200. He then told him he could offer him a much, much better package for $1599 that included the battery, and also 2 much better quality lenses that would sell alone for $599 each if bought separately. He led him to believe that they were also cannon lenses. When it arrived on 12/23/08, we did not get cannon lenses, but sigma. I called in to sonic to complain, and he assured me that these were much better lenses and worth $599 each. He even told me to contact sigma to find out, which I did, but the lenses were only $219 each. I then called sonic again, thinking they must have sent me the wrong lens. This time, he said Sigma would not verify the high cost of these lenses because they were not yet released in the United States, and I had a special Japan lens. We also tried to get them to exchange the 2 sigma lens for cannon on 12/24/08, and they would not without us returning the entire order and paying a 10% restock fee. They kept assuring us that the product we have is better quality, even though we can get it for about $700 cheaper anywhere else. After researching Sonic cameras and finding thousands of complaints against them, we decided to dispute the charges with my bank and send the camera back. He said if I sent it back without the RA code, they would refuse it and it would come back to me, and then I would have the camera more than 7 days and I would be stuck with it and not get a dime back. I can not believe that these people are allowed to be in business with this much fraudulent business going on. Click Here to See the Profile for JustFish 12/30/08 7:03 PM As almost everyone else has written, a classic scam organization. If I had seen this site first, I would have steered far away from their site. When I passed on the initial "up sale" the sales rep was polite and "processed" the order with no further sales attempts. One hour later I got an email saying that my order was 6 to 8 weeks backordered, had been cancelled, and my credit card was not billed. A quick check with my credit card company confirmed no billing. Based on other posts on this site, I am in the process of killing the card number that I gave them. Always remember, if the price is too good to be true then it is. Click Here to See the Profile for cschultz157 12/30/08 5:45 PM Tried to buy a Nikon D80 package from these guys at a price that was a lot less than other online sites. After placing my order they called me back to get the last 3 numbers on my credit card and then said "of course your going to want a battery for your camera at only $199 or $299 for the 'high powered' model" When I told them that I could get Nikon D80 batteries on the net for $15 each and I did not want a battery with the camera then all of a sudden they said the D80 was sold out (while I was talking to him on the phone) but he could "back order it" for delivery in 8-10 weeks. The reputable places include batteries with the camera at no extra charge (Nikon sells them that way). I asked the guy "Luis" if that was deceptive trade practice and he said you get what you pay for. As soon as he said that he asked "well are you going to buy anything or not?" Click Here to See the Profile for BenKlepp 12/30/08 4:00 PM My parents told me to pick out a lens they would buy me as a Christmas gift. Sonic claimed to be selling the lens for $369, while other camera stores were selling it for $500-$600. It looked like a great deal and it explained itself by claiming an end-of-the-year sale. The man who eventually answered transferred me to his "supervisor" who sounded like the same man. He then tried to sell me filters for my lens and also tried to convince me that what I really wanted was a Sigma lens that I know sells for around $150. They post fake prices on good equipment, then try to trick you into buying cheap stuff at jacked-up prices. Avoid at all costs because you simply won't get what you want. Click Here to See the Profile for jantoniuk 12/30/08 10:48 AM This place is a total scam. I then received a call that I needed to purchase a battery. When I declined and told them I would purchase the battery elsewhere, they said my order would ship. After repeated attempts to call them, I finally talked to a real person. After 10 days, I was told my camera was on back order for 2-3 weeks. There was no mention of any issue with inventory when they wanted to sell me an over-priced battery and other add-ons. Click Here to See the Profile for macohen 12/30/08 10:20 AM I purchased a Nikon D60 package online since the price was very low... |