There is no duty on lenses or cameras brought into Canada from the US.
There will be a brokerage fee though, but this can be reduced considerably by using "UPS Expedited" shipping which costs more but includes the brokerage fees. If you go through the motions of ordering a lens at B & H Photovideo, the prices are listed.
Another solution is to use the US Postal Service - when it reaches Canada, it should be handled by Purloator Courier (which has been owned by Canada Post for about ten years). But I'm not sure what happens with the brokerage fees.
Unfortunately, I should have waited until the Cdn dollar reached par or better - I bought my Tokina back in March when it was about $0.85 US.
Actually, when I ordered my Tokina 100mm macro, I did have to pay fees. I paid just under $100 CDN to UPS before they would release my lens to me. I'm not sure where you live in Canada, but that is what I had to pay on the westcoast. So in total, a $399.00 US lens ended up costing me almost double that by the time I paid for everything to have the lens shipped to me.
Canon 30D & REB XT (thinking of converting to infrared), Sigma 10-20mm, Tammy 17-50mm 2.8, Canon 24-70mm 2.8, 70-200mm 2.8 IS, Tokina 100mm 2.8 Macro, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 1.4 ext, and Sigma 4.5 fish eye along with a Bogen by Gitzo Tripod, Manfrotto Ball Head, MacBook PRO, several HOYA filters and a 2GB & 8GB San Disk, 160GB Sanho storage device (really cool btw)......wishing for a Canon 100-400mm. :wink
Actually, when I ordered my Tokina 100mm macro, I did have to pay fees. I paid just under $100 CDN to UPS before they would release my lens to me. I'm not sure where you live in Canada, but that is what I had to pay on the westcoast. So in total, a $399.00 US lens ended up costing me almost double that by the time I paid for everything to have the lens shipped to me.
I'm in Victoria.
You likely paid quite a bit (as I did) in exchange). When I bought my Tokina 12/24, the rate was about 0.85 to 1.00. That take a $400 lens to $470. Then there's shipping and the courier companies must collect and remit the GST and PST. Add another 13 or 14 percent depending on when you bought it.
But the big killer is the brokerage fees on the Canadian dollar value. As I noted previously, the way to go is either USPS, or UPS Expedited.
"There is nothing that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man’s lawful prey". John Ruskin 1819 - 1900
Continuing the OT tangent...I am relieved to read I'm not the only one mystified by the "FF" mania & who understands where the 35mm format came from. I think the hindrances facing introducing a new film size do not really apply with digital. For digital, it's simply up to the manufacturer to tool up production equipment for the specified sensor; on the user end it's really transparent what physical size the sensor is & doesn't matter for the most part. A JPEG is a JPEG is a JPEG--doesn't matter what size the sensor was. No new enlargers or film processing gear to invest in. So, I see multiple sensor sizes sticking around for a long time. AFAIK Canon's been on record saying they plan on sticking with the three sizes they have for the forseeable future, and now Nikon's added another size to their lineup.
What is to prevent a camera manufacturer from making a sensor LARGER than 35mm? Why not?
Nothing at all. Go look at Phase One, Mamiya, Leaf, Hasselblad, BetterLight, etc. All larger than 24x36mm sensors; they are approaching the traditional medium format 645 size now. It just costs an entry-level luxury car to get one of the big sensors (ok, Mamiya is blurring that dividing line now...).
Continuing the OT tangent...I am relieved to read I'm not the only one mystified by the "FF" mania & who understands where the 35mm format came from. I think the hindrances facing introducing a new film size do not really apply with digital. For digital, it's simply up to the manufacturer to tool up production equipment for the specified sensor; on the user end it's really transparent what physical size the sensor is & doesn't matter for the most part. A JPEG is a JPEG is a JPEG--doesn't matter what size the sensor was. No new enlargers or film processing gear to invest in. So, I see multiple sensor sizes sticking around for a long time. AFAIK Canon's been on record saying they plan on sticking with the three sizes they have for the forseeable future, and now Nikon's added another size to their lineup.
Nothing at all. Go look at Phase One, Mamiya, Leaf, Hasselblad, BetterLight, etc. All larger than 24x36mm sensors; they are approaching the traditional medium format 645 size now. It just costs an entry-level luxury car to get one of the big sensors (ok, Mamiya is blurring that dividing line now...).
Interesting points.
The only reason that the current type of DSLRs wouldn't want to have larger sensors is that the existing lenses for DSLRs wouldn't be large enough to accomodate the corners. There is already evidence of this happening with the Canon 5D for example on some lenses (slight vignetting or loss of corner sharpness).
If it wasn't for this, a sensor size of say 30 mm x 45 mm would give us a 56 percent increase in sensor capability (1.562 ratio of areas). I would think that 56 percent would be noticeable.
On the other side of the coin, my 1.6 crop uses the better areas (centre) of all lenses, eliminating most (but not all) vignetting problems.
"There is nothing that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man’s lawful prey". John Ruskin 1819 - 1900
AFAIK Canon's been on record saying they plan on sticking with the three sizes they have for the forseeable future, and now Nikon's added another size to their lineup.
Canon have said that but I don't believe it for a second. IMO, the D3 has sounded the death-knell for the APS-H (1.3x) crop. Canons next 1D3 will undoubtedly be a sub-20mp FF sensor with a crop mode. The Digic range of processors has made the need for reducing sensor data to maintain shooting rates unecessary and Canon won't allow its high-ISO crown to go without a fight. It can't do that with higher pixel-density sensors.
Just my tuppence, but I'm absolutely convinced.
Wouldn't be surprised to see a 1.3x D300 competitor though.
Natural sensor noise (before any processing) is related to the ability of a given photosite (pixel) to record undistorted light in sufficient quantity.
Thats easiest if the photosite is bigger but that becomes more difficult as resolution increases, for the obvious reasons. Mainly that each photosite has to be smaller if you're trying to cram 12mp into, for example, an APS-C senosor, when you're competitors camera only has 8mp.
If a hypothetical Canon EOS 1D4 maintained the APS-H sensor and went to 12mp (same as the D3's 35mm sensor), it would start from the very real disadvantage of each photosite occupying a smaller area and thus being correspondingly less sensitive to light. There are ways around to some extent (reducing the gaps between each photosite, changing the photosite lens configuration) but whereas Canon were well ahead in these technologies, its clear Nikon have caught up.
If the 1D4 doesn't have a similar pixel density to the D3 and given that other design considerations are roughly equal, Canon would either need a new and effective technology to improve sensitivity or would be starting from well behind. Nikon now have effective sensor technology of their own and I don't believe Canon can afford to waste their new improvements playing catch-up in overcoming the laws of physics. To regain superiority, they'll need to start from that level playing field. Hence my belief that APS-H is dead unless it moves downmarket in a body to fill the yawning chasm in Canons range between the 40D and the 1D3 so nimbly filled by the D300.
... Hence my belief that APS-H is dead unless it moves downmarket in a body to fill the yawning chasm in Canons range between the 40D and the 1D3 so nimbly filled by the D300.
Hey. Great info! Much appreciated! One thought, though. I wonder if the H aspect ratio (the same as HDTV displays) might save its butt? It may be somewhat early to say (and I'm certainly just guessing) but H seems to be a good balance of more sensor real estate (than C) and HD-friendly aspect ratio?
One of these days I'm going to look into the sensor fabrication end of things to get a sense of how the waffers are split up. New fab=larger waffer may mean more freedom to make H sensors?
Comments
Actually, when I ordered my Tokina 100mm macro, I did have to pay fees. I paid just under $100 CDN to UPS before they would release my lens to me. I'm not sure where you live in Canada, but that is what I had to pay on the westcoast. So in total, a $399.00 US lens ended up costing me almost double that by the time I paid for everything to have the lens shipped to me.
I'm in Victoria.
You likely paid quite a bit (as I did) in exchange). When I bought my Tokina 12/24, the rate was about 0.85 to 1.00. That take a $400 lens to $470. Then there's shipping and the courier companies must collect and remit the GST and PST. Add another 13 or 14 percent depending on when you bought it.
But the big killer is the brokerage fees on the Canadian dollar value. As I noted previously, the way to go is either USPS, or UPS Expedited.
Nothing at all. Go look at Phase One, Mamiya, Leaf, Hasselblad, BetterLight, etc. All larger than 24x36mm sensors; they are approaching the traditional medium format 645 size now. It just costs an entry-level luxury car to get one of the big sensors (ok, Mamiya is blurring that dividing line now...).
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Interesting points.
The only reason that the current type of DSLRs wouldn't want to have larger sensors is that the existing lenses for DSLRs wouldn't be large enough to accomodate the corners. There is already evidence of this happening with the Canon 5D for example on some lenses (slight vignetting or loss of corner sharpness).
If it wasn't for this, a sensor size of say 30 mm x 45 mm would give us a 56 percent increase in sensor capability (1.562 ratio of areas). I would think that 56 percent would be noticeable.
On the other side of the coin, my 1.6 crop uses the better areas (centre) of all lenses, eliminating most (but not all) vignetting problems.
Canon have said that but I don't believe it for a second. IMO, the D3 has sounded the death-knell for the APS-H (1.3x) crop. Canons next 1D3 will undoubtedly be a sub-20mp FF sensor with a crop mode. The Digic range of processors has made the need for reducing sensor data to maintain shooting rates unecessary and Canon won't allow its high-ISO crown to go without a fight. It can't do that with higher pixel-density sensors.
Just my tuppence, but I'm absolutely convinced.
Wouldn't be surprised to see a 1.3x D300 competitor though.
Thats easiest if the photosite is bigger but that becomes more difficult as resolution increases, for the obvious reasons. Mainly that each photosite has to be smaller if you're trying to cram 12mp into, for example, an APS-C senosor, when you're competitors camera only has 8mp.
If a hypothetical Canon EOS 1D4 maintained the APS-H sensor and went to 12mp (same as the D3's 35mm sensor), it would start from the very real disadvantage of each photosite occupying a smaller area and thus being correspondingly less sensitive to light. There are ways around to some extent (reducing the gaps between each photosite, changing the photosite lens configuration) but whereas Canon were well ahead in these technologies, its clear Nikon have caught up.
If the 1D4 doesn't have a similar pixel density to the D3 and given that other design considerations are roughly equal, Canon would either need a new and effective technology to improve sensitivity or would be starting from well behind. Nikon now have effective sensor technology of their own and I don't believe Canon can afford to waste their new improvements playing catch-up in overcoming the laws of physics. To regain superiority, they'll need to start from that level playing field. Hence my belief that APS-H is dead unless it moves downmarket in a body to fill the yawning chasm in Canons range between the 40D and the 1D3 so nimbly filled by the D300.
Hey. Great info! Much appreciated! One thought, though. I wonder if the H aspect ratio (the same as HDTV displays) might save its butt? It may be somewhat early to say (and I'm certainly just guessing) but H seems to be a good balance of more sensor real estate (than C) and HD-friendly aspect ratio?
One of these days I'm going to look into the sensor fabrication end of things to get a sense of how the waffers are split up. New fab=larger waffer may mean more freedom to make H sensors?