Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 9, 2020 20:56:54 GMT
Posted: Jul 9, 2020 20:56:54 GMT
Maybe this has been discussed in other posts, but probably not as a main topic.
Does anyone know what "Yashica"-labeled cameras (undoubtedly more than just SLR's) were made in China -- probably all by Phenix (NOT Phoenix).
Apparently some or all Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 cameras were manufactured by Phenix, and some indicate that some Samurai cameras were made there as well (Z2/Z2L???)
I doubt that there is a website that covers this, but perhaps there is a list somewhere of Yashica cameras from China.
Since Phenix also makes, or has made, lenses, I wonder if some Yashica lenses were not made by Tomioka, but by Phenix. To complicate matters, Phoenix probably also made lenses with a C/Y mount.
I operate a website that deals with Minolta-mount SLR cameras that were made in China -- there were dozens and dozens of them. Minolta's last runs on SLR's were labeled "Minolta", but made by Seagull -- as were some of their lenses.
Several of Seagull's SLR cameras used a Contax/Yashica mount, and they made many lenses with the C/Y mount, as well.
Some shutterbugs interested in Chinese cameras might like to know about the Yashica-China connection.
I know I would -- but I'm much too busy enough trying to manage the Minolta-China connection!!!
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,370 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jul 10, 2020 9:17:40 GMT
Posted: Jul 10, 2020 9:17:40 GMT
I can see why there might be some suspicions with Chinese (mainland) manufacturers producing products branded for Japanese companies like Yashica and Kyocera, but that scenario is far more likely for any american company to do, than a higher-profile manufacturing firm from Japan. Yashica made cameras, they didn't just buy them to then sell what they bought.
There were obvious licensing deals by Kyocera to rake in some cash with the FX-3 once it was an outdated product. As far as I know, they just used the designs as a source of revenue, and sold the manufacturing rights to a Chinese firm (in this case, at least Phenix, if not others). They didn't loan, sell, or lease them any tooling or parts, since they had none to begin with. All of that was owned and held by Cosina or Chinon... or whoever it was that ultimately made the FX-3's for them. Yashica/Kyocera owned the design, whether their own engineers or someone else's did some or all of the actual design and research work is unknown. Cosina/Chinon/Others may very well have produced some or all of the actual cameras that were branded for, and sold by (mainland) Chinese firms, and Yashica/Kyocera got a cut from them for the design licensing on whatever they made, at $XX.XX per unit.
Hong Kong and Taiwan deals would have been different, and for different purposes. Those would be more of a traditional outsource job, where the 3rd party manufacturers were producing 'product' directly for Yashica/Kyocera, as parts or whole products, and only as exclusive products. They wouldn't be open to rebranding from the 3rd party maker, but Yashica/Kyocera may have provided those same produced products to someone for rebranding (like a Revuenon lens). Once Kyocera had finished having their regular supply of FX-3's (coming from their exclusive supplier) on store shelves as Yashica branded products, they only licensed the designs, and undertook no new deals for FX-3's under any brand.
If they also made a choice to do the same or a similar thing with any other camera, I think the same scenario would play out the same way. Remember who's warranty was in effect, and who's reputation was on the line with anything carrying a Yashica or Kyocera name plate. That in itself would have been far more important than the financial bottom line, especially after Kyocera's ownership. I doubt that anyone at either of the two companies trusted a mainland Chinese outfit to produce anything, at any price, that would have their brand on it.
All of this may not be the only reasons for their stance on Chinese goods. There were 2 wars between them, strained relations were there in the 70's and 80's, and then there's the business etiquette of Japanese companies dealing with other Japanese firms as partners and suppliers above all others. I also think there was a bad taste left in Kyocera's corporate mouth about being forced to bail out Yashica by the government. That may have gone much further than the obvious, and there was far more string-pulling going on to keep the brand on track as a Japanese brand name company. Selling Chinese cameras may have been a huge 'no-no'.
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Jul 10, 2020 13:23:33 GMT
Posted: Jul 10, 2020 13:23:33 GMT
Shin Yashuhara, who produced the Yasuhara T981 camera, in his book, "Yasuhara Works Retrospective", states "In the 1990s, when I left Kyocera, Japanese camera manufacturers moved most of their production bases overseas. Since the manufacture of cameras involves a lot of manual work, labor costs directly translate into manufacturing costs. Except for some high-end cameras, they were mostly made overseas. Kyocera was no exception, and in terms of production volume, the majority was manufactured in China". He also says that Japanese manufacturers would ensconse Japanese managers into the Chinese companies to oversee the manufacturing and to ensure the quality was as required.
Yasuhara worked at Kyocera so I guess that's about as close to getting it straight from the horses mouth as you'll get. So Kyocera did use Chinese manufacturers to make current products. Also, there were Chinese variants of the FX-3 around long before the FX-3 became an outdated product. It seems it was standard practice for the Chinese, or Phenix anyway, to produce variants of the cameras for their domestic market. Whether this was done with agreement with the manufacturer who they were building cameras for or not is a mute point. But I doubt Yashica/Kyocera got anything from it. The same thing happened with the T981 where Phenix produced the JG-50 for their domestic market.
I think there is a general feeling that Japanese cameras couldn't possibly be made in China. I think some of this comes from people who don't want to think their precious Japanese camera was actually made in China. But all manufacturers will do what they need to do to make a profit.
As for the Cosina link. I've yet to see any actual evidence that Cosina made any Yashica/Kyocera cameras or any cameras using Yashica/Kyocera designs. Every camera I've seen that has been made by Cosina uses completely different designs. I think some confusion comes from the fact some camera brands, such as Vivitar, used both Cosina and Phenix to make cameras so you see some Vivitar models based on the Cosina designs and some based on Yashica designs.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 10, 2020 13:30:22 GMT
Posted: Jul 10, 2020 13:30:22 GMT
While "Selling Chinese cameras may have been a huge 'no-no'." for Kyocera/Yashica, it wasn't for Minolta. Lot's of Minolta SLR cameras are marked "CHINA", and not just their lower-tier SLR's. This includes their top-of-the-line X-700, which started in Japan and was moved to the Seagull factory in China.
I can't speak about other camera companies, but if Minolta did it, why not others?
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,370 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jul 10, 2020 21:03:33 GMT
Last Edit: Jul 10, 2020 21:05:40 GMT by lumiworx
I'd certainly believe a former employee who'd continued on past his days at Kyocera, although I think there's a distinction between what 'Chinese' manufacturers were involved. Taiwan and Hong Kong are Chinese, but until recently, there was certainly a separation in culture - and politics - and branding, and business ethos where working relationships and partenering for goods are concerned. That's why I refered to 'mainland' China in a different context.
Foreign goods imported for sale to the US must have a country of origin designated on every item, and "Country means the political entity known as a nation. Colonies, possessions, or protectorates outside the boundaries of the mother country may be considered separate countries." from the perspective of US Customs. There is one caveat to marking the country, where "The country of origin of an article may be changed in a secondary country if one of the following occurs: If the further work or material added to an article in the second country constitutes a substantial transformation. A substantial transformation occurs if a new article with a different name, character, and use is created....", etcetera.
I don't know how many officially imported Chinese (mainland) C/Y mount cameras are in the US, and I haven't seen one in person, or even seen one for sale in the states. That would at least offer some details on manufacturing origins, however... every FX-3 I have (FX-3, FX-3 Super, Fx-3 Super 2000) has "Japan" stamped on the base plate, so at the very least, the official country of origin for those samples wasn't China, or Hong Kong, or Taiwan. Parts or assemblies may have been manufactured there, but the transformation was enough to get them stamped as "Japan", but not "Made in Japan".
I'm not suggesting that it didn't or couldn't happen, or that Kyocera would turn down more profits, but it would be helpful to have the indicators that would be provided as a side-affect of regulations to get a more complete picture. Personally, I don't care where something is made, as long as it's a quality product that has a long enough working life to justify a purchase and not have to spend a majority of it's lifetime in repair depots to get it over that hurdle.
And speaking of the origins of the FX-3 series, it should be noted that the original FX-3 - not the Super, and not the Super 2000 - were completely different animals underneath the skin from their later namesakes. The considerable weight difference makes it evident that the original was substantially a metal camera, and most certainly had a cast metal frame, and not one of polycarbonate or other plastics used in the later revisions.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 11, 2020 1:57:30 GMT
Last Edit: Jul 11, 2020 1:58:50 GMT by xkaes
It certainly is a plate of spaghetti. Here's one more noodle to add -- a TEXER EX-3 which is a Minolta X-370 clone made by Seagull in Shanghai for sale in Japan and marked: www.subclub.org/minchin/texerback.jpg
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 11, 2020 9:22:39 GMT
Posted: Jul 11, 2020 9:22:39 GMT
The various Clones for the FX-3 have been discussed for years onto the Web... it seems that the basic Model was being made by many (licensed) brands, firms, and with different mounts. The original FX-3 does have for sure a underlying Metal Frame, and the outside is being plastic. My 3 Iterations are also "Made in Japan", not being cheapskate China Clones.
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Jul 11, 2020 11:32:47 GMT
Posted: Jul 11, 2020 11:32:47 GMT
And speaking of the origins of the FX-3 series, it should be noted that the original FX-3 - not the Super, and not the Super 2000 - were completely different animals underneath the skin from their later namesakes. The considerable weight difference makes it evident that the original was substantially a metal camera, and most certainly had a cast metal frame, and not one of polycarbonate or other plastics used in the later revisions. I'm sorry but that's actually not true. There is very little difference between the original FX-3 and the later iterations. The screen was changed, the ISO range was tweaked and the shutter was changed to one that had the 2000 position working (but is essentially the same shutter). The base plate became plastic which would make a slight difference to the weight but that's about it. The later variants also had the same cast metal chassis, in fact, I've used an original FX-3 chassis to replace a badly scratched Super 2000 chassis - just move all the parts over.
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Jul 11, 2020 11:34:57 GMT
Posted: Jul 11, 2020 11:34:57 GMT
The various Clones for the FX-3 have been discussed for years onto the Web... it seems that the basic Model was being made by many (licensed) brands, firms, and with different mounts. The original FX-3 does have for sure a underlying Metal Frame, and the outside is being plastic. My 3 Iterations are also "Made in Japan", not being cheapskate China Clones. I've never seen an FX-3 with 'Made in Japan' on it. Maybe you could provide some pictures. They usually say 'Japan' which is not the same thing.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 770 (71 liked)
Join date: August 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 11, 2020 12:11:04 GMT
Posted: Jul 11, 2020 12:11:04 GMT
What is the difference between 'Made in Japan' and 'Japan'?
|
|
Deleted
Group: Member
Post: 0 ( liked)
Join date: January 1970
Status:
|
|
on Jul 11, 2020 12:39:16 GMT
Last Edit: Jul 11, 2020 12:46:39 GMT by Deleted
"Made in" :-)
I was really pointing out that 'Japan' doesn't actually say 'Made in Japan'. It may, legally, mean the same thing. But 'Made in Japan' is a clear statement, just 'Japan' isn't. So it's not really the same thing.
If Lenslover's camera really does say 'Made in Japan' then I'm sure I'm not the only one who would be interested in seeing that. But if, as I suspect, it's his interpretation of the word 'Japan', then this is just another example of how people misinterpret information then post it as a fact. If someone else in the future reads this post they might then go and tell someone else that some FX-3's have 'Made in Japan' written on the bottom. And yet another myth is born.
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,370 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jul 11, 2020 14:38:21 GMT
Last Edit: Jul 11, 2020 14:40:03 GMT by lumiworx
On FX-3 weights... The Super 2000 is 428.3g, and the original FX-3 is 442.5g, and those are raw... no lens, no eyecup, no body cap. It's not a massive amount, but it's noticible, in-hand. I may have made the wrong assumption on the internal poly/plastic construction, but considering that the newest version has a larger body footprint (with the added grip), I wonder if it's more than a focusing screen change alone. I certainly don't want to create any new myths, so I'm happy to learn from anyone. The point I was trying to make was that there was some effort to economize, and at some point - to me, at least - the newer versions 'feel' cheap-ish, and of a lower quality than where the series started, and less than Yashica's previous standards. It may have been an intended tradeoff, or it may just be my own perception, but I don't think I'd be the only one to have that experience. The original version wasn't too heavy, or akward to hold or use. Were there enough complaints from users to make them trim them down, or was manufacturing cost the only consideration? I have no idea what sales numbers would have been, but again, if the only intention was to save money and gain higher profits, it's probably not a good idea to throw money into retooling a whole production line when the payoff wouldn't be there to do it. It might cost less to create a glue-on grip, with a larger patch of leatherette to cover a larger surface area, than make a whole new set of injection molds with multiple cavities for body parts for the Super versions. The markings of "Made in Japan" question, for US imports... ( www.cbp.gov/trade/rulings/informed-compliance-publications/marking-country-origin-us-imports) " The phrase “made in” is required only in the case where the name of any locality other than the country or locality in which the article was manufactured appears on the article or its container and may mislead or deceive the ultimate purchaser. The marking “made in (country)” or other words of similar meaning must appear in close proximity to, and in comparable size letters of, the other locality to avoid possible confusion.
Use of the words “assembled in” may be used to indicate the country of origin of an article where the country of origin of the article is the country in which the article was finally assembled. “Assembled in” may be followed by the statement “from components of (the name of the country or countries of origin of all the components).”...", etc.
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 285 (39 liked)
Join date: April 2014
Status:
|
|
on Jul 11, 2020 20:56:57 GMT
Posted: Jul 11, 2020 20:56:57 GMT
An interesting discussion! Like peter_r, I would be very interested in knowing if lenslover's 3 cameras say "Made in Japan" or just "Japan"? Of course, lenslover may have used the phrase "Made in Japan", in quotes, to just specify that they were not made in China ...... but photos of the actual cameras would be great and tidy up the discussion. A little late here in UK, but I am keen to dig out my Super 2000 from storage tomorrow and look closely at the markings I might even find my long lost FR, FR I & FR II, as I have little idea where these 4 cameras were stored for "safe keeping"!
|
|
Group: Member
Post: 435 (15 liked)
Join date: July 2016
Status:
|
|
on Jul 13, 2020 19:32:08 GMT
Posted: Jul 13, 2020 19:32:08 GMT
And speaking of the origins of the FX-3 series, it should be noted that the original FX-3 - not the Super, and not the Super 2000 - were completely different animals underneath the skin from their later namesakes. The considerable weight difference makes it evident that the original was substantially a metal camera, and most certainly had a cast metal frame, and not one of polycarbonate or other plastics used in the later revisions. I'm sorry but that's actually not true. There is very little difference between the original FX-3 and the later iterations. The screen was changed, the ISO range was tweaked and the shutter was changed to one that had the 2000 position working (but is essentially the same shutter). The base plate became plastic which would make a slight difference to the weight but that's about it. The later variants also had the same cast metal chassis, in fact, I've used an original FX-3 chassis to replace a badly scratched Super 2000 chassis - just move all the parts over. Peter, don't be that picky! It just says "Japan", i checked it currently on my 3 FX-3's, but seriously, it doesn't matter if "Made in Japan" or "Japan", it's being made in Japan, so what's the buzz about it? ;-)
|
|
Group: Administrator
Post: 1,370 (301 liked)
Join date: February 2017
Status: Failed treatment for L.B.A. and G.A.S,
|
|
on Jul 14, 2020 1:09:06 GMT
Last Edit: Jul 14, 2020 1:10:24 GMT by lumiworx
lenslover ... The US import regulations require the use of very specific phrases to pin down the country of origin, the country of manufacturing, or the country of assembly, or the country(s) providing assemblies or parts. In trying to find out where camera bodies or lenses are manufactured, these labels can make that easy. Not every country has regulations, but many countries will accept products that comply with US regulations for their own use, so buyers in other countries get the same information provided by the markings. "Made in Japan", is different from "Japan", which is different from "Assembled in Japan", which is also different from "Contains components from Japan". Other users in other countries that also have labeling requirements covering photo gear could also provide some clues on whether something was made in or assmbled in any other country outside of Japan. The EU doesn't have any requirements (yet) that I know of, but the individual countries may have their own, that were in place before joining the EU.
|
|