 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / November 2004To buy D-70 Advice needed
Hi Within few days, i'm going to Goa and Pangin (India) and I'll stop at Gatwick/Heathrow (I don't know yet). I need advice about the best place/price to buy a Nikon D-70. thanks in advance Regards CMG On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:41:11 +0000, C.M.G wrote: > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > CMG I would say B&H with a 3-day delivery, except B&H aren't allowed to ship the D70 outside of the USA. I know because I had to buy mine locally after my basket failed to reach checkout at B&H. I hear that electronic goods are pretty cheap in Asia, but I don't know about cameras. >I would say B&H with a 3-day delivery, except B&H aren't allowed to ship >the D70 outside of the USA. I know because I had to buy mine locally after >my basket failed to reach checkout at B&H. Yeah, plus you'd have to pay duty and VAT, and maybe get the VAT refunded. Not cheap. >I hear that electronic goods are pretty cheap in Asia, but I don't know >about cameras. Good point. Singapore seems cheap, and Dubai might give a good deal. If it's a direct flight, I don't imagine it's a good idea to wait until India to get it.  SignatureKen Tough > Good point. Singapore seems cheap, and Dubai might give a good deal. > If it's a direct flight, I don't imagine it's a good idea to wait > until India to get it. True. Don't even think of buying in India. The Canon dRebel, that sells for US$700 (with kit lens) in the US after rebate, sells for Rs.67,000 in the India without the lens. Rs.67,000 is approx. ~US$1450. Even in the grey market here (that means no sales tax and no warranty coz its smuggled), the dRebel is Rs.46,000 with the lens - that is ~US$1000. >>I would say B&H with a 3-day delivery, except B&H aren't allowed to ship >>the D70 outside of the USA. I know because I had to buy mine locally after >>my basket failed to reach checkout at B&H. > > Yeah, plus you'd have to pay duty and VAT, and maybe get the VAT > refunded. Not cheap. Well, I got my 14% VAT back on the local purchase, but I still ended up paying a lot more than if I had bought it from B&H. I think the final figure was R15,500 including the 512MB card and the 18-70mm lens. Had I been able to buy it from B&H at the prevailing exchange rate of $1=R6.5 I would have only paid in the region of R11,000 including UPS Priority shipping, ad valorum and VAT. I have bought from B&H in the past and the duty was only 7% when I picked up from the international post office. I spoke to one of the local reps from UPS who is responsible for clearing all items brought in from the US and he tells me that if you import an accessory, such as a lens or a flash or a camera body on its own, there is no duty payable. If you import a fully functional item, such as a digital P&S, or a camera and lens combo you pay ad valorum. Most of the time I think the customs officials don't have a clue when it comes to working out the tax. You just have to be on your toes. >Well, I got my 14% VAT back on the local purchase, but I still ended up >paying a lot more than if I had bought it from B&H. I think the final >figure was R15,500 including the 512MB card and the 18-70mm lens. Had I >been able to buy it from B&H at the prevailing exchange rate of $1=R6.5 I >would have only paid in the region of R11,000 including UPS Priority >shipping, ad valorum and VAT. I'm hoping for the same in the UK at around GBP 850 less VAT, which works out to about R8100. Almost worth a holiday to pick it up! SignatureKen Tough >>Well, I got my 14% VAT back on the local purchase, but I still ended up >>paying a lot more than if I had bought it from B&H. I think the final [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm hoping for the same in the UK at around GBP 850 less VAT, which > works out to about R8100. Almost worth a holiday to pick it up! <confused> Are you living in the UK or are you importing it to SA from the UK? </confused >Are you living in the UK or are you importing it to SA from the UK? Living in SA. I'm not importing anything into SA, but suggesting that one might do it if one wanted a good deal and happened to be going there for any reason. ;) SignatureKen Tough >>Are you living in the UK or are you importing it to SA from the UK? > > Living in SA. I'm not importing anything into SA, but suggesting > that one might do it if one wanted a good deal and happened to be > going there for any reason. ;) Ah... What part of SA are you from, Ken? I'm a Durbanite, born and bred. the only time I haven't lived in Durban was during national service in the late 80's where I spent 6 months in Hades (Kimberley) and 18 months in Pretoria. I have fond memories of Pretoria and they definitely have the best girls in SA (once you get past the accent!). > On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:41:11 +0000, C.M.G wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I hear that electronic goods are pretty cheap in Asia, but I don't know > about cameras. About 30 years ago, a Japanese student friend of mine, went home to Japan for vacation, and I gave him a copy of pop photography to take with him so he could compare the local Japanese prices to those of the New York stores. When he came back, he told me that the Japanese prices were higher than the NYC store prices... > About 30 years ago, a Japanese student friend of mine, went home to Japan > for vacation, and I gave him a copy of pop photography to take with him so > he could compare the local Japanese prices to those of the New York stores. > When he came back, he told me that the Japanese prices were higher than the > NYC store prices... Nothing in Japan is cheap (according to friends of mine who work for Toyota and who travel there often). I was thinking more about places like Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong and Dubai (although the latter is more middle East than Asia. >> About 30 years ago, a Japanese student friend of mine, went home to Japan >> for vacation, and I gave him a copy of pop photography to take with him [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I was thinking more about places like Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong and > Dubai (although the latter is more middle East than Asia. Yes, but this is still a strange phenomena to me. That you may have to pay more for an item when you buy it in its country of manufacture than you would when you buy it from half way around the world. I would have had to pay $25 for a Swiss army knife in Switzerland than I paid for it from Best & Co. store in Mountain View, California. Of course, the only reasonable explanation for this is politics, and the taxes that are charged by the politicians. When I was in Mazatlan, Mexico, the price of a carton of Camel cigarettes was under $6.00. At the local Safeway store at home, the same carton was about $15.00 at the time. How could they make the carton of cigs, truck it all the way to Mazatlan, and still sell it for less than half the price they would sell it for in the Bay area of California? - Taxes is the answer, of course. The US government is screwing the hell out of smokers in the US. > Yes, but this is still a strange phenomena to me. That you may have to pay > more for an item when you buy it in its country of manufacture than you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > explanation for this is politics, and the taxes that are charged by the > politicians. Actually there are lots of other reasons. 1. Bulk buying. if the american store bought 10,000 of them and sold them at next-to-no markup, they could well be cheaper. 2. Packaging, are these identically packaged products? 3. Cost of staff to sell it to you, obviously american employees are roundly raped, so it costs next to nothing to put some starving person off the street as a sales assistant in your store. The same is not true elsewhere. 4. Cost of facilities. Something tells me that store premises are worth a bit more in Switzerland than in america. The price you pay for not being shot while working in them. Of course, if you'd like to go off on your little tirade about the government and taxes, go right ahead. I find it deeply amusing that your shortsighted libertarian idiocies only apply to you, though. Any entity you perceive as part of the government who does exactly what they want gets whined about. B >> Yes, but this is still a strange phenomena to me. That you may have to >> pay [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > B> Your point about the bulk buying is well taken. The sheer quantity of stuff that must pass through B&H or Adorama must account for a lot of the reduced price. As for the rest of your post.....Sheer BS.......... > >> Yes, but this is still a strange phenomena to me. That you may have to > >> pay [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > that must pass through B&H or Adorama must account for a lot of the reduced > price. As for the rest of your post.....Sheer BS.......... So your little whiny libertarian (but not liberal) self can't comprehend that a store in a country where shop assistants and premises cost 2-3 times as much will put a larger markup on goods? Ah well, I guess libterians or whatever the hell you are consider economics to be a government fiction. B > > Your point about the bulk buying is well taken. The sheer quantity of stuff > > that must pass through B&H or Adorama must account for a lot of the reduced [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > B> They have to.- To survive. B&H, Calumet and others typically get product from suppliers at below the standard dealer cost. They then price the goods at about the standard dealer price. I consider such dealers the Walmarts of the photo industry. SignatureDuzz that A moose you ? >> price. As for the rest of your post.....Sheer BS.......... > So your little whiny libertarian (but not liberal) self can't > comprehend that a store in a country where shop assistants and > premises cost 2-3 times as much will put a larger markup on goods? Which doesn't explain why the Mexican super could sell a carton of US cigs for less than 1/2 the price of the US stores.......I know when my government is dealing drugs. I don't need you to make excuses for them. In 1956 the US Navy tax-free stores were selling cigarettes for $1.10 a carton. I have been to the tobacco country in North Carolina, and seen cigarette machines that were almost as large as my house turning out cigarettes by the millions night and day. I know that it can't cost more than 25 cents a pack to make cigarettes even today. The other $3.00 or so is the governments take in taxes. I can't help it if you are a fish that thinks that if the government does it, it must be good.....You are the kind of idiot that will allow your government to enslave you or your descendents some day.....Thankfully, I won't be around to hear your cell door slam closed. I'll let your great-grandchildren have that dubious pleasure......... > >> price. As for the rest of your post.....Sheer BS.......... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Which doesn't explain why the Mexican super could sell a carton of US cigs > for less than 1/2 the price of the US stores....... Doesn't it. They don't, of course, have lower labour costs, and they certainly don't have lower costs for facilities and real estate. Oh no. Did you even bother reading my post? > I know when my government > is dealing drugs. Good for you. > I don't need you to make excuses for them. I haven't made excuses for anyone, I've just explained simple economics to you in the hope you'll stop whining about the government being out to get you. I was in fact, explaining the example of a swiss army knife before you started whining about drugs. > In 1956 the US > Navy tax-free stores were selling cigarettes for $1.10 a carton. I have been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cigarettes even today. The other $3.00 or so is the governments take in > taxes. Huzzah for handwaves on profit margins, costs for distribution and sales, marketing, buffers for legal costs. Boo for the nasty government who is obviously taking all the money in taxes. Now, why precisely shouldn't the government tax the buggery out of cigarettes? The idiots smoking them are at the same time far more likely to have massive health problems and far less likely to put aside money to pay for it. > I can't help it if you are a fish that thinks that if the government > does it, it must be good.....You are the kind of idiot that will allow your > government to enslave you or your descendents some day.....Thankfully, I > won't be around to hear your cell door slam closed. I'll let your > great-grandchildren have that dubious pleasure......... You're still a whiny liberatarian idiot. I can't see the basis on which you claim I love and accept all government actions because I understand basic commercial realities. Are they so tied together in your mind? I think you'll find that the only country in which blind faith acceptance of government propaganda takes place on this scale is in america. B > > So your little whiny libertarian (but not liberal) self can't > > comprehend that a store in a country where shop assistants and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > won't be around to hear your cell door slam closed. I'll let your > great-grandchildren have that dubious pleasure......... Call me when every smoker pays, out of their own pocket, the amount of time they waste at work taking smoke breaks and the amount of healthcare smokers cost non-smokers and then we'll have a discussion about getting rid of cigarette taxes. You do know some major libertarian think-tanks were funded and/or founded using big tobacco money, right? Amazingly enough, they made the same stupid argument you make now. Now, I don't expect you to be able to come up with a comprehensive counter-argument to this, so just go back to lurking until the next time you get a chance to ram your ill-founded ideologies down our throats. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ >> > So your little whiny libertarian (but not liberal) self can't >> > comprehend that a store in a country where shop assistants and [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > smokers cost non-smokers and then we'll have a discussion about getting > rid of cigarette taxes. Did I say that it's good to be a drug addict? - I think you guys need to read my posts....All I ever said is that our government takes advantage of them, and makes money taxing their drugs......It's called, "Dealing"...........I don't happen to believe in, "Sin taxes". The purpose of the tax laws is to generate the necessary money for government to operate, and not to control the morality of the people. Each of us should have to pay our fair share of governments expense, and not a penny more. A concept that somehow gets lost on liberals......They want the, "Sheriff of Nottingham" to pay for it all. > You do know some major libertarian think-tanks were funded and/or > founded using big tobacco money, right? Amazingly enough, they made the > same stupid argument you make now. What are you saying here? - That the government forced the tobacco manufacturers (and their stockholders) to pay for something they neither needed or wanted? - So what else is new. Every April 15th my government forces me to pay for a whole bunch of stuff that I neither need or want. - So what? > Now, I don't expect you to be able to come up with a comprehensive > counter-argument to this.... You may expect anything you want, but don't be surprised if you are disappointed...... > > Call me when every smoker pays, out of their own pocket, the amount of > > time they waste at work taking smoke breaks and the amount of healthcare [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > concept that somehow gets lost on liberals......They want the, "Sheriff of > Nottingham" to pay for it all. Well, funny that. Nice for you to ignore the ECONOMIC impacts of smoking. Morality has next to nothing to do with it. > > You do know some major libertarian think-tanks were funded and/or > > founded using big tobacco money, right? Amazingly enough, they made the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > forces me to pay for a whole bunch of stuff that I neither need or want. - > So what? I'm saying your argument isn't your own. Additionally, the Tobacco companies CHOSE to settle. They were not forced to. > > Now, I don't expect you to be able to come up with a comprehensive > > counter-argument to this.... > > You may expect anything you want, but don't be surprised if you are > disappointed...... I'm not. Your attempts at countering my claims were... well, horrible. Missing the point, changing the subject... Way to dodge the issue, Bill! Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ >> > Call me when every smoker pays, out of their own pocket, the amount of >> > time they waste at work taking smoke breaks and the amount of [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > I'm not. Your attempts at countering my claims were... well, horrible. > Missing the point, changing the subject... Way to dodge the issue, Bill! It's a typical liberal argument that there is some "cost" to society, when the liberals insist on taxing me to pay for something/someone that I wouldn't normally pay for. A typical argument for funding abortions, (for example) is that society would have to pay for the children anyway. I believe that every women should have the right to an abortion, but that society should not have to pay for it. If the liberals want to pay for it, well, that's their choice, but I shouldn't have to pay for it. The same principal applies here. If you believe that society is better off paying for the medical costs of smoking, then you are living in, and forcing me to live in, your little socialist world, and then using the socialism as an argument for justifying my paying the costs. This is the same thing as sticking a gun in my ribs and robbing me, and then saying, "Since you are paying for this, don't you think that....." There is a difference between the right to do something, and forcing the taxpayers to pay for it. Every woman has the right to buy a Cadillac, but the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it. Every smoker has the right to kill himself with cigarettes, but the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for his/her medical treatment. If you steal from me to pay for that treatment, well, fine, but then don't use the fact that my money pays for it as an argument to control it, or to take away the right of the individual to kill himself with it. The right of the individual to do as he/she pleases is paramount, and helping him out with his medical expenses doesn't give you the right to control his behavior. Especially when you push your socialism on me against my will by stealing money from me, and then tell me that that gives you the right to control my actions.......I believe that government should have the responsibility to educate the public to accept responsibility for their own actions. But that's where their responsibility ends. After the schooling is over, they shouldn't pay for the stupidity of their citizens, and force me to pay for it through the taxation system. I will accept responsibility for myself, thank you, and just keep your cotton pickin' hands off of my pocketbook....... > It's a typical liberal argument that there is some "cost" to society, when > the liberals insist on taxing me to pay for something/someone that I [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > system. I will accept responsibility for myself, thank you, and just keep > your cotton pickin' hands off of my pocketbook....... Can you EVER stay on topic, or even refute points made? No, you just go on random tirades about liberals, the government and taxes. Get a clue and read the 16th amendment. Which was approved by Congress... and the states... OVER 90 YEARS AGO! Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ >> It's a typical liberal argument that there is some "cost" to society, >> when [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > and read the 16th amendment. Which was approved by Congress... and the > states... OVER 90 YEARS AGO! "The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." ....And you think that means they can collect over $2.00 tax on a 25 cent pack of cigarettes? ........Get a life........... And, by the way, please get permission from Alan Browne before continuing this thread....... >"The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from >whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and >without regard to any census or enumeration." > >....And you think that means they can collect over $2.00 tax on a 25 cent >pack of cigarettes? Sorry to keep this thread alive, but out of curiousity is it actually illegal to grow your own tobacco, or just difficult to grow and process it well? People manage to grow their own pot, so it should be possible with varying degrees of success. In UK where tax is $7.25 per packet of cigarettes, you would think it would be worthwhile for example. Difficult, maybe, given the climate, but surely it wouldn't be illegal for someone to make a nice indoor greenhouse kit with the right kind of soil, timed lights etc. SignatureKen Tough >>"The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from >>whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > nice indoor greenhouse kit with the right kind of soil, timed > lights etc. I believe that it's OK for an individual here in the US to grow and smoke his own tobacco, but woe to anyone who tries to sell any of it to a friend, or anyone else. Our government hates to lose a cent of those 1000% taxes..... Actual D-70 content to follow this: >>>"The congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from >>>whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >or anyone else. Our government hates to lose a cent of those 1000% >taxes..... I'm in rural eastern NC and have tobacco growing all around me. The golden leaves are there for the picking up after the official harvest is over. I quit smoking the stuff 5 years ago or I'd have certainly tried some of this homegrown. Crops are rotated and where tobacco stood for a season, sweet potatoes are planted and after the harvest is done, what's left is also left for the having. Never a problem, just good old southern way of doing things. Cotton, corn, soybeans and collards are regularly seen as well. Far as the D70 is concerned, I'm not going there until my 20mm Nikkor is just what it was originally intended to be. Am I stupid or what? > The US government is screwing the hell out There you go starting you off topic rants about taxes, etc. SHUT UP WILLIAM! STAY ON TOPIC. TRY IT FOR ONE MONTH. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- [SI] rulz: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. >> The US government is screwing the hell out > > There you go starting you off topic rants about taxes, etc. > > SHUT UP WILLIAM! STAY ON TOPIC. TRY IT FOR ONE MONTH. I didn't start this thread....I was simply discussing why the prices of items is cheaper in countries other than the countries of manufacture. Typically, you cut out most of my post, and only took one part of a sentence out of context. Here is the whole post, which is really no ones business but mine and Dallas': Yes, but this is still a strange phenomena to me. That you may have to pay more for an item when you buy it in its country of manufacture than you would when you buy it from half way around the world. I would have had to pay $25 for a Swiss army knife in Switzerland than I paid for it from Best & Co. store in Mountain View, California. Of course, the only reasonable explanation for this is politics, and the taxes that are charged by the politicians. When I was in Mazatlan, Mexico, the price of a carton of Camel cigarettes was under $6.00. At the local Safeway store at home, the same carton was about $15.00 at the time. How could they make the carton of cigs, truck it all the way to Mazatlan, and still sell it for less than half the price they would sell it for in the Bay area of California? - Taxes is the answer, of course. The US government is screwing the hell out of smokers in the US. > The US government is screwing the hell out of smokers in > the US. Again, shut the hell up. You could have made your point with out your annoying libertarian babble. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ >> The US government is screwing the hell out of smokers in >> the US. > >Again, shut the hell up. You could have made your point with out your >annoying libertarian babble. If you guys would quit replying to and quoting him the rest of us would never have to read him again. > If you guys would quit replying to and quoting him the rest of us > would never have to read him again. Were it simply so. Google refers. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- [SI] rulz: http://www.aliasimages.com/si/rulz.html -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch. > >Again, shut the hell up. You could have made your point with out your > >annoying libertarian babble. > > If you guys would quit replying to and quoting him the rest of us > would never have to read him again. If it were only that simple. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ >> >Again, shut the hell up. You could have made your point with out your >> >annoying libertarian babble. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > If it were only that simple. The liberals have exited the woodwork, and are squeaking again......Save it for November, 2008 guys........ C. M. G. <cmgam.RemoveThis@sapo.pt> wrote: >Within few days, i'm going to Goa and Pangin (India) and I'll stop at >Gatwick/Heathrow (I don't know yet). >I need advice about the best place/price to buy a Nikon D-70. Depends on whether you want to bother heading all the way into London or not. Presumably you won't want to haul all your luggage (if it isn't checked through) and may need to pay to store it for the day. It's either a little pricey or long on time to get into London from the airport (rapid train probably 30 pounds round-trip, plus maybe six pounds for tube travel. You could get away with tube to Heathrow, but it'll be 3 hours+ round trip.) So if you're willing to head into London (or will do it anyway) maybe Oxford St/Tottenham Ct Road tube station is best.. You can haggle at some of the shops nearby up Tott Ct Rd (may be cheaper cash than c.card). You'll have to get your VAT returned on exit at the airport [you need to show the goods] to save the 17.5% VAT or it won't be worth it. Otherwise, the electronic shops at the airport, like Dixon's, may have a price higher than you could get in London, but after you take off the VAT I'd be surprised if it was as much as 50 pounds different. Considering the hassle and travel costs, it probably isn't worth it, and you could just get it in the airport. A good price for D70 + 18-70 DX lens seems to be hovering around 750 to 800 pounds right now (incl. VAT), 650 without the VAT. [One other thing to think about is you'll probably need at least -some- accessories, like Sandisk Ultra II CF, and maybe you want a fast lens... in that case it's worth going into London for the package]. SignatureKen Tough C. M. G. <cmgam.RemoveThis@sapo.pt> wrote: >Within few days, i'm going to Goa and Pangin (India) and I'll stop at >Gatwick/Heathrow (I don't know yet). >I need advice about the best place/price to buy a Nikon D-70. It might not have been clear in my other post, but if you buy duty-free at the airport you will not have to pay VAT, but if you buy in London you must pay that extra 17.5% up-front and the government will refund it a couple of months later (including the option of paying to your credit card), which might make a difference to you. SignatureKen Tough |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.