B&H and Canon 70D.
I have 2 questions that I need advice on, Thanks for your response.
1. Has anyone purchased a refurbished product from B&H? If so was it good or bad?
2. What would be your favorite lens (Zoom or Prime) for the Canon 70D?
Thanks.
Don't oversubscribe the meaning of 'refurbish'. It means nothing like 'fix'. They just assure all the original stuff is there and functional. They're not doing anything of added value to then sell the equipment at a discount. Canon doesn't either, although Canon can at least place the camera into new 'Canon original' packaging.
Selecting a lens depends on your purpose. Wildlife needs something at least 400mm long, so saying the EFS 18-135 IS USM is a great general purpose lens means nothing to your wildlife needs. The EF 50 f/1.8 is lens everyone should have, but on the 70D it will be more like a short 80mm telephoto.
jrcarpe wrote:
I have 2 questions that I need advice on, Thanks for your response.
1. Has anyone purchased a refurbished product from B&H? If so was it good or bad?
2. What would be your favorite lens (Zoom or Prime) for the Canon 70D?
Thanks.
Do not know what you want for a zoom but a favorite would be:
Wide-10-18mm STM
Normal-24-105mm
Tele- 100-400mm MII. One of the sharpest lenses zoom or prime that you can get.
jrcarpe wrote:
2. What would be your favorite lens (Zoom or Prime) for the Canon 70D?
Thanks.
Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 Contemporary .....then, Canon 70-300 IS II nano
Architect1776 wrote:
Do not know what you want for a zoom but a favorite would be:
Wide-10-18mm STM
Normal-24-105mm
Tele- 100-400mm MII. One of the sharpest lenses zoom or prime that you can get.
Alas, the 24-105 is a tad less 'normal' on a crop sensor, giving more on the long end, but a lot less on the wide end. The EFS 18-135 is a better match to an EOS 70D for true 'general purpose' zoom.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Don't oversubscribe the meaning of 'refurbish'. It means nothing like 'fix'. They just assure all the original stuff is there and functional. They're not doing anything of added value to then sell the equipment at a discount. Canon doesn't either, although Canon can at least place the camera into new 'Canon original' packaging.
Selecting a lens depends on your purpose. Wildlife needs something at least 400mm long, so saying the EFS 18-135 IS USM is a great general purpose lens means nothing to your wildlife needs. The EF 50 f/1.8 is lens everyone should have, but on the 70D it will be more like a short 80mm telephoto.
Don't oversubscribe the meaning of 'refurbish'. It... (
show quote)
If they are not CLAing and replacing any exterior parts such as worn rubber or scratches on the rear display then it's not refurbished. Confirming that everything works is not refurbishing.
leftj wrote:
If they are not CLAing and replacing any exterior parts such as worn rubber or scratches on the rear display then it's not refurbished. Confirming that everything works is not refurbishing.
If the camera is used enough to need replacement of 'worn' parts, the camera will be sold as used, not 'refurbished' by replacing surprisingly expensive replacement parts and selling the results at a deeper loss ...
Where would B&H get a camera to 'refurbish'? The same way Canon does, via near immediate returned stock from customers. I don't mean 30-days returns. More like the "I took it out of the box and decided it wasn't right for me" customer returns. That equipment is brand new in every way except being unsold. Canon can put it back into Canon brand-new packaging and sell as refurbished. Third-parties can just double-check that everything is there.
Imagine operating your own for-profit business and performing a value-added function to something you want to sell. How much do you pay your tech per hour? How much do the replacement parts cost? If that tech touches the camera and spends enough time to then perform a replacement part, how could you sell that camera less than the cost of new given the money you've now invested into that camera?
There's no profit in holding onto unsold or returned stock. There's even less profit in adding value to a product you cannot sell at a profit reflecting that value-added. These companies are not buying used equipment and 'refurbishing'; they're just reselling returns as efficiently as possible while incurring the minimum of new costs.
CHG_CANON wrote:
If the camera is used enough to need replacement of 'worn' parts, the camera will be sold as used, not 'refurbished' by replacing surprisingly expensive replacement parts and selling the results at a deeper loss ...
Where would B&H get a camera to 'refurbish'? The same way Canon does, via near immediate returned stock from customers. I don't mean 30-days returns. More like the "I took it out of the box and decided it wasn't right for me" customer returns. That equipment is brand new in every way except being unsold. Canon can put it back into Canon brand-new packaging and sell as refurbished. Third-parties can just double-check that everything is there.
Your assumptions about what happens clearly lacks an understanding of the camera industry. Image performing a value-added function. How much do you pay your tech per hour? How much do the replacement parts cost? If that tech touches the camera and spends enough time to then perform a replacement part, how could you sell that camera less than the cost of new given the money you've now invested into that camera?
There's no profit in holding onto unsold or returned stock. There's even less profit in adding value to a product you cannot sell at a profit reflecting that value-added.
If the camera is used enough to need replacement o... (
show quote)
No lack of understanding. If a retailer is selling a "used" camera without CLAing and cosmetically restoring the camera and calling it refurbished then they are being dishonest. I'm not talking about a brand new camera that was returned unused. I can show you the repair bill on a Nikon D750 that represents what I call refurbished.
leftj wrote:
No lack of understanding. If a retailer is selling a "used" camera without CLAing and cosmetically restoring the camera and calling it refurbished then they are being dishonest. I'm not talking about a brand new camera that was returned unused. I can show you the repair bill on a Nikon D750 that represents what I call refurbished.
Feel free to read the details (they are minimal) from the Canon or Nikon websites, rather than inventing your own expectations / understanding or redefining 'repair' to mean refurbish. All those actions are valid only to you and have no application to how these companies actually operate as businesses.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Feel free to read the details (they are minimal) from the Canon or Nikon websites, rather than inventing your own expectations / understanding or redefining 'repair' to mean refurbish. All those actions are valid only to you and have not application to how these companies actually operate as businesses.
I prefer to read the details on my repair order. They match what I consider a true refurbish.
leftj wrote:
I prefer to read the details on my repair order. They match what I consider a true refurbish.
That's nice. Good for you.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Alas, the 24-105 is a tad less 'normal' on a crop sensor, giving more on the long end, but a lot less on the wide end. The EFS 18-135 is a better match to an EOS 70D for true 'general purpose' zoom.
I love it on my 7D.
That is why the 10-18 for wide.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.