+1 Luckily Canon does a good job packing their products... some 3rd party makers do a really crappy job packaging their goods (Sigma definitely).

Ernie Aubert wrote:
I believe I've had the same inadequate level of cushioning inside the outer box from them, too. It must be their standard procedure.

Peter Le wrote:
I`m still dealing with crushed corners on very expensive Epson paper that was very poorly packed by B+H. Never will buy paper from them again. Every time I try to smooth a corner before printing I curse B+H. Do they realize what the crackheads in shipping are doing to their rep

Haha! I assumed you've ever had to hire people to work at a boring low paying job like packing boxes? You don't attract the cream of the crop. Nobody wants to do a job like that so employers take what they can get.

Incidentally, crackheads are old skool. Talkin' 80s. Probably all dead now. Iceheads rein supreme today.

I got the crushed corners on paper as well. Did an RMA and had new paper in no time.

E

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.

Peter Le wrote:
I`m still dealing with crushed corners on very expensive Epson paper that was very poorly packed by B+H. Never will buy paper from them again. Every time I try to smooth a corner before printing I curse B+H. Do they realize what the crackheads in shipping are doing to their rep

Peter, I appreciate your situation but please do not refer to my colleagues, who are human beings, as "crackheads." It's denigrating and certainly not necessary. I checked every order I could find from you over the past 2 years and see several with Epson paper. What I don't see is any indication you contacted customer service to let us know about this. We'd certainly have replaced any damaged boxes you received.

Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video

I have also had my share of inadequate packaging from B&H.
For example, I have received my brand new 300 f/2.8 IS from them with the Canon seal tape ineptly reapplied to the lens-set box.
I have also had a brand new lens probably dropped before being placed in the shipping carton. I still have the lens box with one corner squashed to prove it.

B&H used to be my first gear supply choice, however, their packaging and shipping is one reason that ain't so any more. (Their used and new prices is a more important reason, but that's outside of this topic.)

henryp wrote:
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.

Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video

Henry,

I have received from B&H (and other online retailers) fragile equipment packed with bubbles on all sides but one or two, which of course you may as well not have any. I think the packers must be thinking they just have to keep the item from moving or something. I think these big bubbles are a bad idea for that reason and also the fact they can deflate (I have received electronics with a flattened bubble).

I disagree that the manufacturers box contains more than adequate packing. They need something to help cushion shock. I had a shipper drop my 400/5.6L on the concrete in front of my house - oops.

I think it is much better to use heavy low grade packing paper material (the kind that is scrunched) surrounding the item. This is much better, can be reused, and doesn't add to our mountain of plastic waste.

Gene

henryp wrote:
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.

Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video

I love the fact that B&H is here, in this forum to respond. From personal experience, I've never received a damaged product or inner product package from B&H, no matter what the outer shipper looked like. I also appreciate the consideration that B&H gives to the environment when looking at their own high-volume business.

I hope the OP receives satisfaction in their direct contact with Henry. I heartily recommend B&H to anyone that ever asks me for a camera retailers. My experience with them has been exceptional since day 1.

Mark Zwiesler wrote:
B&H has been a cut above other on line retailers in my experience (in terms of how they pack and ship). Amazon, in my experience, has been the worst. I have had the same experiences that Omar mentioned, simple non fragile items packed as though they were precious delicate micro chips or something, while expensive fragile items like camera lenses or bodies get packed into cartons with barely any protection at all. It just doesn't make sense.

Mark

Amazon has sent me a few packages where the protection inside was laughable.

Completely bogus.

henryp wrote:
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.

Mind you though, these shipments usually arrive in pallets no? and handled with forklifts? Unlike individual boxes that you've sent to customers, which could very easily be thrown around during sorting/delivery by the courier staff.

n0b0 wrote:
Mind you though, these shipments usually arrive in pallets no? and handled with forklifts?

Sometimes, but not often enough to say "usually."

Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video

I don't even bother to order lenses from Amazon anymore due to the inadequate packaging.

I hate to spend thousands of dollars on a lens or body for it to arrive in a beat up box with no padding inside. I don't believe that the manufacturers packing is always adequate protection and when I spend my money I want the retailer to take care of my items and not rely completely on the mfgs packing.

If the mfgs packing is adequate then why even place one plastic pillow in the box Really, what good will that one pillow do Sorry, that just screams half-ass.

rachp wrote:

If the mfgs packing is adequate then why even place one plastic pillow in the box Really, what good will that one pillow do Sorry, that just screams half-ass.

one side pillow will keep the mfg box from shaking around inside the box. for those that have said that the camera still shakes isnt secure inside the mfg box... I dont think you are going to fix that by adding more external padding so definitely not B&H's fault on that.

And as for those who claim inadequate padding... maybe B&H (and all sellers of camera gear) should make shipments in pelican cases with 3 yard radius of bubble wrap . would that be sufficient?
obviously that sounds ridiculous, and everybodies idea of "sufficient" will differ, so B&H has chosen what it deems sufficient, either deal with it or choose to buy from somewhere else.

henryp wrote:
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.

Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video

First, let me say that I have purchased many items from B&H over the years, and never have experienced anything less than well packed boxes. My pereception of B&H is akin to LLBean: no questions asked on returns, fast customer service, excellent quality control.

As a customer, I have been turned off by poor packing from other on line retailers.

Now, as to the implication that manufactuer's individual product boxes are designed to withstand direct shipping, if just wrapped in brown paper, that is true in some cases, and not so in others, depending on the item.

As a general rule, if the product ships from a manufacturer to a reseller as an individual unit (not packed in a case with other products), its packaging has been designed to withstand direct shipping. Typically large items, like TV's, printers, etc, are shipped this way. The packing is designed to absorb drops, etc. There is air space to absorb even modest box punctures.

If it is shipped in a case pack, the individual unit box has been designed to withstand shipping inside a case pack. The case pack is designed to provide the additional protection needed for normal shipping conditions.

Manufacturers ship test their products as part of the carton and case pack design process. The product is tested and evaluated after each test. Manufacturers have different standards and ways of testing of course.

So, a camera or lens that ships to B&H in a case pack of lets say 6 units, and B&H re-packs it and ships to a consumer in a B&H box. If the item is poorly packed, it could, depending on what standards the mfg used, and also the shipping conditions it experienced along the way, sustain damage that may not be visable.

That said, cameras and lenses are designed to take some banging around, and are not as delicate as some would think. If the shipping box and the item's box are undamaged, but the item was losely pack, it is likely that the item itself is fine. A drop or jolt strong enough to damage the item would most likely leave prominent damage on at least the shipping box.

However, going back to the LLbean analogy, the impression B&H's box makes on a mail order customer will drive the customer's perception of B&H ... just like the conditions in your store do to a walk in customer.

Certainly something to look into.

Perhaps the most telling thing about this thread is that, despite all the outrage about inadequate packing, there aren't many instances of actual damage caused.

dcad10 wrote:
rachp wrote:

If the mfgs packing is adequate then why even place one plastic pillow in the box Really, what good will that one pillow do Sorry, that just screams half-ass.

one side pillow will keep the mfg box from shaking around inside the box.

It didn't in the boxes I received. The mfgs box was free to bounce around - that one pillow did nothing to keep the mfgs box snug in the outter box.

globalkiwi wrote:
Perhaps the most telling thing about this thread is that, despite all the outrage about inadequate packing, there aren't many instances of actual damage caused.

My point. Thank you.

Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video

sskoutas wrote:
I love the fact that B&H is here, in this forum to respond. From personal experience, I've never received a damaged product or inner product package from B&H, no matter what the outer shipper looked like. I also appreciate the consideration that B&H gives to the environment when looking at their own high-volume business.

I hope the OP receives satisfaction in their direct contact with Henry. I heartily recommend B&H to anyone that ever asks me for a camera retailers. My experience with them has been exceptional since day 1.


X2. I have had no problem with their packaging. And I've ordered cameras, tripods and misc. smaller items from them. And it's extremely FAST, too. (And FREE, thanks to my NAPP discount!)

mh2000 wrote:
+1 Luckily Canon does a good job packing their products... some 3rd party makers do a really crappy job packaging their goods (Sigma definitely).

Ernie Aubert wrote:
I believe I've had the same inadequate level of cushioning inside the outer box from them, too. It must be their standard procedure.



Can't see where you're getting your Sigma experience .. they have very sturdy boxes, and most of their lenses sit inside their own padded cases inside the box.

jrscls wrote:
I don't even bother to order lenses from Amazon anymore due to the inadequate packaging.

Amazon is indeed bad, but Dell is far worse. I ordered a EF-S 10-22 when they first came out and it was delivered in a 18" cube box with NO padding. Nothing. Zippo. A 4" box in an 18" box. HELLO!

globalkiwi wrote:
Perhaps the most telling thing about this thread is that, despite all the outrage about inadequate packing, there aren't many instances of actual damage caused.

I agree with this point completely. But it does happen and who wants to be the one that receives the damaged items because the packing was poor? I always dread opening that box and wondering if the item is damaged.

Sadly, substandard service and performance is becoming the norm in America. Additionally, it often occurs in a climate of no accountability or restitution.

I know that personally, it's rare that my expectations are met.. let alone exceeded.

I'll agree that some padding in an external box is certainly better than none, since it does at least fill part of the void. But I'm not sure I agree with the argument that manufacturers' boxes are sufficient to protect the products inside from the likes of UPS or FedEx.

Manufacturers pack products in boxes that are then packed into large containers or wrapped tightly together on large pallets, so the opportunities for significant impacts on the boxes is limited while they're being shipped from the factory.

In the hands of courier companies, however, those boxes could be dropped, kicked, thrown, crushed etc. multiple times during transit -- potentially far more forceful treatment than any shipping from factory to retailer.

All the manufacturer has to worry about is getting the goods safely to the retailer with minimal returns. I can't imagine they conciously design packaging to withstand post-retailer treatment. Additionally, in the case of sensitive electronics etc. we have no idea how rough handling affect the product. Products might well work fine when they arrive at your home, but if they have problems six months later how are we to know whether or not rough handling was a factor?

rachp wrote:
globalkiwi wrote:
Perhaps the most telling thing about this thread is that, despite all the outrage about inadequate packing, there aren't many instances of actual damage caused.

I agree with this point completely. But it does happen and who wants to be the one that receives the damaged items because the packing was poor? I always dread opening that box and wondering if the item is damaged.

True, no one does. But I personally prefer the more minimalist airbag approach to endless mounds of polystyrene. It may seem reassuring to have your item buried amidst a sea of peanuts but I'm not sure it is necessarily safer (& it's certainly worse for the environment). It's not always true but sometimes less is more.

globalkiwi wrote:
Perhaps the most telling thing about this thread is that, despite all the outrage about inadequate packing, there aren't many instances of actual damage caused.

This is true on my end *I think*.

I have had to send quite a few lens and bodies in for calibration and other defects. How do I know hey weren't caused by poor handling with insufficient padding? My most recent is a 35L that is off over 1.5 DOF out of the box, which had two sides of the lens box against the shipping box hed in place by a bubble.. Is that Canon QA or shipping?

Gene