pjbishop wrote:
UPS just delivered a 5D Mark II body from B & H. I\'m not happy because I consider the camera to have been carelessly packed. No matter that the Canon box is itself is fairly sturdy...
I am sorry for your dissatisfaction and this frustrating incident. I\'d like to investigate this further but from the info here I cannot ID you or this transaction. My email is in my sig. Please let me know the B&H order number.
Speaking more generally to the issue of packing. First I think it\'s obvious no retailer would purposely jeopardize its good reputation with deliberately poor packaging. We ship (as you may imagine) thousands of packages daily and very very few are returned due to in-transit damage resulting from poor packaging.
I appreciate that mountains of fluffy product protection will look like better packaging than what was described here, but more internal packaging does not necessarily mean more protection and it certainly does mean more landfill and more non-biodegradable garbage. In an era when we\'re asked about the worth of every page in our printed catalogs we\'re more mindful than ever of our ecological \"footprint.\"
Camera bodies and lenses are packed by the manufacturer with more than adequate protection inside the manufacturer\'s colorful box, whether it be cardboard or polystyrene. In fact when we receive a box of cameras or lenses from Canon or Nikon (or whomever) each product box is packed side-by-side from wall to wall with no additional internal packing or packaging at all.
The issue is not necessarily how our packaging looks but how it performs. Cameras and lenses (and all the other stuff) arrive unscathed with neither cosmetic or real damage of any sort. Frankly the manufacturer\'s internal protection is so adequate we could wrap the camera box in plain brown paper, seal it with packing tape and ship it that way.
Nevertheless, customer opinion is important to us and I am sharing this with our fulfillment and warehouse/shipping managers.
