Why is it so difficult to find out where a camera or lens or a product was made?

[bfilm]

I am looking for information on the Hasselblad XCD lenses.

Unless it has changed, the Hasselblad XCD lenses are made by Nittoh in Japan.

 

[Romanko]

This must be a new thing. Most of my cameras have their origin proudly displayed on the lens or the body, like Kamera Werk Niedersedlitz or Franka-Kamerawerk Bayreuth.

 

[Pieter12]

This must be a new thing. Most of my cameras have their origin proudly displayed on the lens or the body, like Kamera Werk Niedersedlitz or Franka-Kamerawerk Bayreuth.

I suspect that some buyers of new Hasselblad cameras would rather not be reminded that the lenses were made in Japan or possibly China (since Hasselblad is owned by a Chinese company), for that matter.

 

[Taylor Nankervis]

I don't think it matters one jot where a product is made nowadays. We do not live in the 1970s or 80s, where products from, for example China, Europe or Asia generally, were looked upon with scorn and suspicion. Why is it important, and what is the bearing?

And a heads-up: on photographic equipment (camera bodies and lenses) it is evidently all too easy to scour off legitimate markings of the origin of manufacture, and replace the marking with a new engraving! This fraudulent misrepresentation has been seen a few times now on eBay.

 

[Pieter12]

Maybe because of rumors of how the workers in certain countries are treated.

And I don’t every remember (Western) European cameras every having a bad reputation.

 

[Chan Tran]

Unless it has changed, the Hasselblad XCD lenses are made by Nittoh in Japan.

I saw this in the Matt Grainger video on the 75P lens.

Hard to see but we should be able to tell that it said made in China.

 

[Agulliver]

I suspect most people are more concerned with price and performance. Those who do care about the country a product was made in will have a preference, usually their own country....though additionally people in the West might prefer electronics made in Japan over made in China.

Given that the same images of the product will likely be used on dozens of different versions of Amazon and other international retailers, it may well be deliberate that the "made in" is hidden....or at least not made obvious.

However....many countries also have legislation which means that the origin of products must be identified. I bet that a click or two on the right part of the description on any major retailer will reveal the official "made in" designation.

 

[Chan Tran]

However....many countries also have legislation which means that the origin of products must be identified. I bet that a click or two on the right part of the description on any major retailer will reveal the official "made in" designation.

I don't know but I tried without much sucess.

 

[hardly any color]

That's true especially in the USA. I don't know how it is in Europe where you are. In Japan they do care.

I actually care, and try to find this information for everything I buy.

 

[Chan Tran]

I actually care, and try to find this information for everything I buy.

And how much luck you have in doing so short off having the item in your hands?

 

[hardly any color]

And how much luck you have in doing so short off having the item in your hands?

If I can’t the information then I ask the seller. Works pretty well. Try it some time.

 

[mshchem]

Yep, I've found countries who have (somewhat) functioning democracies and open markets are whom I tend to buy from. It doesn't always work. Trying to buy a car it's pretty difficult if you are hung up on country of origin.

Hard to grasp that Nikon cameras aren't made in Japan these days.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There are in fact distinct laws governing what can be labeled as "Made in USA", including the necessity of a preponderance of its components being domestically manufactured. BUT those laws are so routinely violated, and deceptive labeling so rampant, with the fines so small by comparison, that outright false labeling is almost an epidemic. Often it only tells one where an item was packaged, and even then, not necessarily truthfully. Plus outright counterfeits abound. All that of course it mainly symptomatic of cheap consumer products for sake of mass outlets.

Our own topic here has a different basis. But I don't know why. Even Nikon survey instruments, which are made to their specifications in a giant optical factory in Xian, China, are clearly labeled as such, Made in China, with no ambiguity. The accompanying label, Nikon USA, identifies merely the marketing entity.

I sold power tools from major corporations like Bosch, which has factories all over the world; and each case, the country of manufacture is clearly identified somewhere on the product or its packaging, whether Germany, or Malaysia, or the US, Austria, Switzerland, or China. Why that isn't the case with cameras and lenses baffles me. I can understand the benefits of having multiple options, each adapted to its own setup and skill set - and in fact the "same" model of camera or lens might come from more than one factory as needed. But why not indicate the actual source right on the item itself?

If another round of tariffs is imposed on incoming imports here, it will be interesting to see how "they" try to figure all this out. (But I'm not trying to entice any P. discussion of this. It will be a logistical issue.)

 

[Chan Tran]

There are in fact distinct laws governing what can be labeled as "Made in USA", including the necessity of a preponderance of its components being domestically manufactured. BUT those laws are so routinely violated, and deceptive labeling so rampant, with the fines so small by comparison, that outright false labeling is almost an epidemic. Often it only tells one where an item was packaged, and even then, not necessarily truthfully. Plus outright counterfeits abound. All that of course it mainly symptomatic of cheap consumer products for sake of mass outlets.

Our own topic here has a different basis. But I don't know why. Even Nikon survey instruments, which are made to their specifications in a giant optical factory in Xian, China, are clearly labeled as such, Made in China, with no ambiguity. The accompanying label, Nikon USA, identifies merely the marketing entity.

I sold power tools from major corporations like Bosch, which has factories all over the world; and each case, the country of manufacture is clearly identified somewhere on the product or its packaging, whether Germany, or Malaysia, or the US, Austria, Switzerland, or China. Why that isn't the case with cameras and lenses baffles me. I can understand the benefits of having multiple options, each adapted to its own setup and skill set - and in fact the "same" model of camera or lens might come from more than one factory as needed. But why not indicate the actual source right on the item itself?

If another round of tariffs is imposed on incoming imports here, it will be interesting to see how "they" try to figure all this out. (But I'm not trying to entice any P. discussion of this. It will be a logistical issue.)

As I said this information is always on the items but it's very hard to find out if you don't have the item in your hands. It seems that the people who did the advertising and reviewing tried to hide this information.

 

[DREW WILEY]

In the case of small photo gear, it seems to be accounted as sufficient to have country of origin somewhere on the box or inside it - the packaging so to speak - but not necessarily on the hard product itself. So when the gear gets isolated from its box, there you have it (or don't have it).

I don't know what reviews have to do with this. Having written a number of equipment reviews myself in earlier years, I know how the system works. Most reviews are done by people who do that for their living, or mostly so, who therefore cycle through a quantity of related items quite rapidly, and often published their opinion in multiple publications (back when magazines were the main route). With that kind of rushed pace, a significant BS coefficient could be expected, along with superficiality of review. I did it the painstaking thorough way instead, and got paid double.

Now web and UTube videos are more routine, and rarely any better than in the bad ole magazine days; but that all depends on the integrity and competence of the specific reviewer, of course. Lots of marketing people don't even know what kinds of questions to ask; nor do they care; they're mostly just pom-pom cheerleaders. But again, that dismal assessment isn't a universal, but an inevitable stereotype of the prevailing trend. More than five decades of experience taught me that. Sales Reps per se - 50/50; even at camera shows, plenty of dunces, yet also a lot of well informed ones too. Sorting out the who's who in that respect is critical.

 

[cmacd123]

Most reviews are done by people who do that for their living, or mostly so, who therefore cycle through a quantity of related items quite rapidly, and often published their opinion in multiple publications (back when magazines were the main route). With that kind of rushed pace, a significant BS coefficient could be expected, along with superficiality of review.

back the old "old" days, the reviewersfor the magazines may have been told to omit th einformation that they were evaluating an early Production model. or that the importer provided a carefully selected sample which was the shaprest of the ten lenes that they received from the factory out of the first batch.

I can recall that "Modern Photography" was the only publication that mentioned such things in their reviews.

 

[DREW WILEY]

More often, the practical wisdom was to be careful to avoid any kind of negative comments, or your chain of test loaners and even free equipment might dry up. I didn't care about that, and published what I believed, based on actual testing of equipment, and sometimes even dissection of it, or actual repair track records I had access to. That actually worked in my favor, because the scales were tipped in favor of the best equipment flowing toward me, and not the kind of junk typical of reviews. Consumer Reports was awfully careless in that respect, often assigning different ratings to exactly the same consumer item, but just under different brand labels or colors.

I never published articles on prototypes. I was handed an awful lot of them, and respectfully gave my own assessment, with suggestions of how to improve the product, or if it was worth marketing at all, which might get listened to or not. The best manufacturers welcomed even negative input about their prototypes, and constantly sought to improve their products. Those were the kind of outfits I mainly dealt with, in terms of actual sales representation. When a mfg CEO would sit down with me for three hours, and begin the conversation with, "Tell me all your complaints", I knew I had a winner.

But numerous companies didn't listen to anyone but the CEO and the marketing dept; and those didn't listen to anyone but themselves. Some of them didn't even bother to prototype and test at all, but went straight from idea into mass production, regardless of consequences. Make a quick buck and run. Different market, generally related to the outsourcing tsunami flooding the big box outlets.

So given my background, you can understand why I took most camera mag reviews themselves with a grain of salt. If seeking any serious photo equipment purchase of my own, I'd track down the inventor or engineer, or top sales reps, who were typically completely straightforward, unlike most marketing personnel. My own older brother had once worked at the pro counter of a major camera store, so that helped too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I suspect that some buyers of new Hasselblad cameras would rather not be reminded that the lenses were made in Japan or possibly China (since Hasselblad is owned by a Chinese company), for that matter.

I fall into that group of Hasselblad owners and users.