It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Unless your Doug Wilkes in England....who cites " Made by hand, because we don't know how to use the equipment"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry0wI3Zd8ek
This is especially important from a customs and excise perspective, as the country of origin has to be called out on any Bill of Ladings.
I would be very surprised if there isn't something similar in US law (probably more to do with import/export than from an advertising standpoint), as they are even hotter in such documentation than in Europe - although more lax on such things as RoHS etc.
Interesting read, though.
Fender American series made in America by Mexicans.
I’m so bored I might as well be listening to Pink Floyd
The workers racial descent doesn't come into it and I doubt Fender are using illegal workers.
In any case, a lot of work is shared (or used to be) between factories which are fairly close to each other albeit across a national border.
I've played nice epiphones and squiers amongst others and they are always great for the money, never just great. The closest is the MIJ guitars but up until recently they even came with the caveat of needing to change pickups.
eg Yamaha SG2000, SA and AES series, Ibanez Artist guitars and Musician basses, Aria SB basses, and Levinson Blade which are made there despite the brand being Swiss.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
I understand that initially guitars were made there for cheaper labour costs but that's not been the case for decades now, and that's point I guess.
You won't get quality Korean/Indonesia guitars on a consistent level until the workers are paid more by which time the price of the guitar will be not far off US/UK made ones.
It's an intentional marketing strategy for Korea to keep costs down too. If Koreans thought they could sell guitars at the same quality and price point as American or even Japanese ones, they would. But the perception is that Korea is a lower-quality producer hence no-one would take them seriously, so there's no point.
Koreans and Japanese workers are equally skilled and capable of using the same quality of machines as well as American ones...
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Zeiss and Leica.
To be fair, Zeiss lenses are actually the top of the tree, actual lab tests have shown that but Leica is not technically the best camera, in design, ISO performance, ergonomics, pixel count, dynamic range, or any actual camera qualities...
As others have said, I don't believe there is any difference in manufacturing quality. The might be differences in the specifications (the Martin doesn't have a gloss finish) but in terms of quality of manufacture I don't see them as being inferior. In fact the only guitar I've had in recent years that had significant flaws from the factory was a US made Gibson.
Zeiss and Leica.
To be fair, Zeiss lenses are actually the top of the tree, actual lab tests have shown that but Leica is not technically the best camera, in design, ISO performance, ergonomics, pixel count, dynamic range, or any actual camera qualities...[/quote]
Well, some would say the very best guitars come from Germany too - Nik Huber, Hartung, etc...
Those are a very tiny slice of the overall market though, just like with Zeiss and Leica.
I'm talking about the Fender & Gibson of the camera world - Canon and Nikon... If for example Nikon releases a new lens and it's an expensive one, there's a good chance it's made in Japan.
And the user communities will be happy to discover this, and often sometimes annoyed if it isn't...
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
I wouldn't call the factories fairly close either TBH. They are around 175 miles apart.
The difference between cameras and guitars is that cameras have no mojo. And unlike pieces of wood or choice of glue use, metal is metal, glass is glass, it's all made in a lab, not grown on a farm. To be honest, I have never thought about Canon/Nikon as Gibson/Fender, mainly because the logic behind getting them is not like guitars.
With cameras, when I advise someone to buy a camera I advise them to buy either Canon or Nikon because they have the best support as a system, not because like Guitars, their idols used them or that they sound the best or take the best pictures. I would say get either Canon or Nikon because when you upgrade, your lenses go with you, as you are tied to a system. You do not tied to a particular guitar. You are not tied between a Gibson to a Marshall or a Fender to a … Fender amp. You cannot however use a Canon lens on a Nikon camera. For one thing, they screw in the totally opposite direction ! These 2 system also has the widest range of lenses, so you can get lenses for them from all price bracket, in all focal length (although Canon has the edge on this, which I will explain more below). I do not advise people get either Canon or Nikon because they are made in Japan, I advise them on the merit of the system.
(going on to a bit of an essay here now)
In the physical form, from holding the camera in the hand, or the picture it produces. Where as in guitar one can say "this sounds nicer to my ears". With a photo, you can actually judge everything scientifically. A Zeiss has shown it is constantly the sharpest lens maker in the world, beats Nikon and Canon's best efforts. Leica to me is nothing more than a logo, it seriously relies on its rangefinder heritage in this digital age. IMO Fuji makes a better digital rangefinder than Leica does these days. Better noise control, better choice of lenses, better menu in camera, better price, it is just a better camera actually regardless of the price. I don't really think of where it comes from with cameras, like I do with guitars. I don't think Korean is worse than USA or Germany is better than Japan or vice versa. It is very much spec dependent for me, and actually an individual case by case basis.
I know that Sigma only really has like 6 great lenses, the 24A, 35A, 50A, 24-35, 18-35 (APC sensor), their new 20mm. The rest of their stuff is best ignored.
Canon makes 2 tiers of lenses. The L Glass is generally excellent, but some are much better than others. The 85/1.2 is a masterclass in optics engineering. The 200/1.8 is the unicorn of the lens world. The 1200/5.6 is just insane. They consumer range like the 50/1.8 is widely considered a great optics if cheap enclosure (the mk1 version is better built, the 85/1.8 is the best bang for buck lens for that focal length for £300. The new STM range of lenses is really quite excellent. But you can get not so good like their 28/2.8 which I find pointless.
Nikon too have the same great lenses but also not so great ones. Their 14-24mm is gorgeous, but they do lack range, they don't have say any auto focus 1.2 lenses, and they need to update some of their line up to catch up with Sigma now.
And Nikon and Canon's logo does not automatically means great lens, actually most lenses are made in Japan, at least all mines are, and I don't have much allegiance in brand names. I am tied to Canon because my bodies are Canon but I would get the best glass for it. My sharpest lens is a Sigma, the 50mm Art. I would get the Zeiss Otus but the Otus, at £3500, is a manual focus lens, which is useless for me in a wedding situation.
Anyway, these days, Zeiss makes the best lenses, though they do not make any autofocus for Canon and Nikon mount, must be to do with licencing, since everybody and their dog do it – Tamron, Sigma, they both reverse engineer their lenses to Canon and Nikon but Zeiss only make autofocus lenses on a Sony mount.
Sony makes the best sensors, they supply Nikon with their sensor tech so Nikon too have the best sensors.
Canon has the best range of lenses, from super wide to super tele, to tilt shifts to macro, they also have the best flashlights systems with built in radio transmitters.
I would say if someone show me a Canon or Nikon camera, I don't immediately think it’s the best because it's made in Japan. I think they picked a system that has the best support. If they show me a Sony DSLR I would think they were sold on the body spec, but not the lens range (as it’s the most lacking and also the most expensive). If someone show me a Leica, I would think they bought it because of the brand name, not it's picture quality.
Saw a guy with a Sony A7Rii with a Zeiss 25mm in Stockholm, now that's someone who knows what he is buying, was quite envious actually, there I was holding a Canon 5D3 with a 35L in my hand!
Anyway, I never think "made in Japan" is best. Perhaps because all my lenses are made in Japan….or that I never pay attention to its country or origin, I do pay attention to the lens that I am getting.