It is the industry's way of being allowed to charge an extra $3.27 (plus tax) on your purchase
Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
Quando omni flunkus moritati (R. Green)
To hold the back on?
Originally Posted by Jim Jones
Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada
Ansel Adams had the Zone System... I'm working on the points
system. First I points it here, and then I points it there...
Originally Posted by Klainmeister
I usually leave them on and don't bother with them. I can see how it can help resale value, if the sticker is pristine or has little handling use or fading, the lens or body probably was little used or taken care of well.
After taking the camera (or lens) out of the box, the sticker was removed.
This is too much
What's there to pass on a Holga?
"Sir, we checked and the lens has some diffraction issues, there's light leaks around the back, the focus is incorrect, and the shutter seems to be the same no matter which setting...."
The lower the quality of the camera or lens the harder is to remove the sticker. at least this is going on in my collection
"There's more to the picture
Than meets the eye." - Neil Young
& My APUG
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Question: If the Gold stickers were placed on the front or rear element of a Holga, would the image improve?
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Yes but you wouldn't be able to see it.
Originally Posted by perkeleellinen
In the early 1950s "Made In Japan" was synonym for junk. Badly made junk, not well made junk. This was true of everything made in Japan, including cameras. Think of the Hit and similar subminiatures.
At the time there were many small machine shops making so-so 6x6 TLRs, so-so fixed lens 35 mm viewfinder cameras, small lens grinding shops making lenses for them, ... Junk.
In order to help export sales the government set up Japan Camera Inspection Institute to improve the quality of cameras exported from Japan. Simply idea, due I think, to W. E. Deming. JCII sampled cameras and lenses from every batch ready to be ship, tested the sample. Sample size set to detect, with high enough probability, batches whose pass rate was above the maximum acceptable. If the items in the sample passed test every item in the batch got the "Passed" sticker. If any failed, nothing in the batch got the sticker. Items without the sticker couldn't be exported.
This was a smart implementation of statistical quality control and is one of the reasons that the Japanese camera industry drove most of their European competitors out of business.
That said, when Eric Beltrando and I were working on our article on Boyer, the company and its lenses, he told me a story from Boyer's last days. Boyer had a line of projector lenses. Mounted in metal, carefully inspected, ... , and expensive. One of their customers told M. Kiritsis, Boyer's then owner, that he'd been offered lenses from Japan at a much lower price than Boyer's. To which M. Kiritsis, who was a very honorable person, replied to the effect that he couldn't lower his price and that the customer should buy lenses from Japan. The customer responded that he tested the trial batch from Japan and that the fraction of lenses that passed acceptance testing was so low that Boyer's lenses were still the better buy.
Not strictly true Dan, both Canon and Nikon were manufacturing nigh quality cameras in the early 1950's albeit derived from Leica's and Contax's.
Originally Posted by Dan Fromm
The quality of the Nikon's and particularly their lenses was higher than the German lenses, often older pre WWII versions because availability of new lenses was poor and CZJ quality variable.
But yes in general overall Japanese camera quality in the early 50's wasn't high, they'd passed that mantle to Honk Kong by the 60's.
Ian, I must have been unclear. JCII provided quality control (for export goods only) only to Japanese lens and camera manufacturers. That's what I meant when I wrote "strictly Japanese."
Yes indeed Canon and Nikon (listed in alphabetical order, no invidious distinctions intended) made high quality optical goods in the early 1950s. So did, e.g., Olympus and, I'm sure, some other Japanese manufacturers. But in the US in those days -- I was there -- "Made in Japan" was read as "cheap, junk." As a child I had Japanese toys, some from the town of Usa marked "Made in Usa." Nasty cheap sheet metal ...
Funny thing is, my father, who then worked for Westinghouse Electric, spent part of 1953 in Japan teaching Westinghouse trade secrets to Mitsubishi Electric. Japan had exchange controls, couldn't compensate my father directly. So they fed him very well, showed him the country, and sent him home with a mountain of gifts. The gifts were all beautifully made. They also introduced him to "Deming thought," which was then unknown in the US.
I have no idea of your age, but if you were old enough to notice much in the early '50s you were probably denied our experience with imports from Japan. This because, IIRC, in those days the UK still had import controls.