p.2 #1 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
I’ve seen delivery drivers throw boxes from the truck to the street to get something out so count me as one who prefers a well-padded second box. If B&H won’t do it then shop somewhere else.
p.2 #2 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
snapsy wrote:
Do you think UPS and FedEx's shipping guidelines recommending double-boxing and 3 inches of padding are superfluous?
If you had to watch your $4k Sony camera thrown 10 feet by a UPS driver, you would have no personal preference between that camera box being shipped by itself vs shipped inside a well-padded second box?
If I were to worry about that, I’d never buy a camera. I’ve had hi-fi components and speakers delivered with the shipping label stuck right on the original box more than once. So what?
p.2 #3 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
I have bought hundreds of items from B&H over the past few decades.
Question: How many times has the product been damaged in transit?
Hint: It's a single digit number that bears a strong resemblance to a donut.
p.2 #4 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
dclark wrote:
I have bought hundreds of items from B&H over the past few decades.
Question: How many times has the product been damaged in transit?
Hint: It's a single digit number that bears a strong resemblance to a donut.
In the 30 years I've owned property, not one has been robbed, burned down, or been destroyed by a weather event. I still choose to lock my doors, keep defensible space, and carry home insurance.
p.2 #5 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
snapsy wrote:
In the 30 years I've owned property, not one has been robbed, burned down, or been destroyed by a weather event. I still choose to lock my doors, keep defensible space, and carry home insurance.
p.2 #6 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
I have been a loyal B&H customer since long before the era of online shopping and intend to remain one. However, I am sharing this feedback to encourage more rigorous packaging standards, especially for high-end gear. When I purchased a Sony 70-200mm f/4 FE lens in 2015, it arrived with a shattered rear element due to insufficient protection. While B&H was quick to provide a replacement, it was a frustrating and preventable waste.
p.2 #7 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
Bradford wrote:
I have been a loyal B&H customer since long before the era of online shopping and intend to remain one. However, I am sharing this feedback to encourage more rigorous packaging standards, especially for high-end gear. When I purchased a Sony 70-200mm f/4 FE lens in 2015, it arrived with a shattered rear element due to insufficient protection. While B&H was quick to provide a replacement, it was a frustrating and preventable waste.
It's in B&H's own interests as well - like most large retailers, they likely self-insure their shipments, which means they have to eat the loss when an item is damaged in shipment.
p.2 #8 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
You can all disagree with me now, but the idea that a lens element of a camera lens could be shattered during transport while still in its original packaging strikes me as pure fantasy. For that to happen, the entire packaging would have had to be destroyed, meaning the shipping company, not the sender, would be liable.
p.2 #9 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
Nifty Fifty wrote:
You can all disagree with me now, but the idea that a lens element of a camera lens could be shattered during transport while still in its original packaging strikes me as pure fantasy. For that to happen, the entire packaging would have had to be destroyed, meaning the shipping company, not the sender, would be liable.
Lens elements are held into place inside via circular retaining rings, spacers, and even glue. Blunt-force impact can compromise any of these, causing the element to partially dislodge enough to hit against an internal component to cause focused stress against the glass, causing it to crack.
p.2 #10 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
I've had delicate stuff shipped by B&H with less filler than the OP and it's all been fine -- I live in Manhattan and still prefer to have them ship me stuff than pick it up myself. Yes, it sucks to have a camera or lens arrive rattling around in a box (experienced that myself), but the manufacturer packaging is usually designed to withstand however many drop-kicks the likes of UPS or FedEx might inflict on a package during transit. However, if the shipping box is physically torn or punctured then all bets are off and that would be when I'd potentially refuse delivery.
p.2 #11 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
Nifty Fifty wrote:
You can all disagree with me now, but the idea that a lens element of a camera lens could be shattered during transport while still in its original packaging strikes me as pure fantasy. For that to happen, the entire packaging would have had to be destroyed, meaning the shipping company, not the sender, would be liable.
That's assuming the lens wasn't flawed in manufacturing, leaving it open to a seemingly extraordinary outcome.
p.2 #12 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
snapsy wrote:
Lens elements are held into place inside via circular retaining rings, spacers, and even glue. Blunt-force impact can compromise any of these, causing the element to partially dislodge enough to hit against an internal component to cause focused stress against the glass, causing it to crack.
Exactly. And a blunt-force impact is virtually impossible without completely obvious deformation—if not outright destruction—of the outer packaging.
p.2 #13 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Exactly. And a blunt-force impact is virtually impossible without completely obvious deformation—if not outright destruction—of the outer packaging.
Consider the example I posted earlier - a B&H box on a UPS truck, sandwiched between other shipments and thus unmovable. The truck makes a sudden stop from high speed, causing the inner OEM lens box to shift forward and hit against the side of the B&H box. Since the B&H box is unmovable (sandwiched between other shipments), there will be no damage to the B&H box, but the force of inertia will be transferred to the inner OEM lens box. If that inner OEM lens box shits and hits squarely against the B&H box, it also will exhibit no damage, but the force of inertia will be transferred to the contents of the inner OEM lens box, ie the lens.
p.2 #14 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
snapsy wrote:
Consider the example I posted earlier - a B&H box on a UPS truck, sandwiched between other shipments and thus unmovable. The truck makes a sudden stop from high speed, causing the inner OEM lens box to shift forward and hit against the side of the B&H box. Since the B&H box is unmovable (sandwiched between other shipments), there will be no damage to the B&H box, but the force of inertia will be transferred to the inner OEM lens box. If that inner OEM lens box shits and hits squarely against the B&H box, it also will exhibit no damage, but the force of inertia will be transferred to the contents of the inner OEM lens box, ie the lens....Show more →
Sorry, but that’s nonsense. The OEM packaging is not the same thing as the lens itself. Its very purpose is precisely *not* to transmit shocks directly to the contents it is meant to protect. Blunt force simply doesn't occur. And with that, I’m bowing out of this pointless discussion. It saves my nerves.
p.2 #15 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
I have had mixed results with BH shipping. Lately it has been better in terms of how things are packed.
HOWEVER, I ordered the Sony A7RVI and an additional battery pack. Instead of shipping both together expedited --- they sent together regular shipping so it will take 6 days instead of two. Guess next time will order separately -- which will be more expense for BH. Ridiculous policy.
p.2 #16 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Sorry, but that’s nonsense. The OEM packaging is not the same thing as the lens itself. Its very purpose is precisely *not* to transmit shocks directly to the contents it is meant to protect. Blunt force simply doesn't occur. And with that, I’m bowing out of this pointless discussion. It saves my nerves.
OEM packaging absorbs as much force as it's designed to accommodate, but not more, and definitely not 100%. Much of my early career was spent at a computer peripheral manufacturer that shipped very large, very heavy, and very expensive enterprise-level computer gear. They designed and tested the packaging they used, which included a calibrated drop-tester that applied specific blunt-force G forces to the box, after which they'd remove the gear and visually evaluate and test. There was always a G-threshold in which the item didn't survive the fall. They designed the packaging to withstand a reasonable, worst-case estimate, which served them very well but did not completely eliminate cases of shipping damage.
p.2 #17 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
snapsy wrote:
Consider the example I posted earlier - a B&H box on a UPS truck, sandwiched between other shipments and thus unmovable. The truck makes a sudden stop from high speed, causing the inner OEM lens box to shift forward and hit against the side of the B&H box. Since the B&H box is unmovable (sandwiched between other shipments), there will be no damage to the B&H box, but the force of inertia will be transferred to the inner OEM lens box. If that inner OEM lens box shits and hits squarely against the B&H box, it also will exhibit no damage, but the force of inertia will be transferred to the contents of the inner OEM lens box, ie the lens....Show more →
I imagine a large proportion of lenses sold worldwide today are shipped from retailer to consumer so I cannot imagine this is a terribly likely outcome. It would surely result in an unsustainable level of returns.
p.2 #18 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
I haven't ordered gear from B&H for years, but they've always been a bit loose with the packing. Still, the only problem I had with them was when I ordered a 17" wide roll of Canon's satin and a 17x22" box of Hahnemühle canvas. They were put in a box too big for either with no packing material. The roll survived, but the Hahnemühle did not. It turn me off ordering paper, so I found a local supplier (which, thanks to their bulk-buy discounts, has been cheaper in the long run).
These days, if I need to order gear I can't otherwise source, I go to Kenmore. I've never had a bad experience with them, and the couple times I've been in the area and visited, it felt like walking into my hometown shops. My only complaint is that their used selection online is too light in the details, but they are open to questions if you e-mail or call.
p.2 #19 · B&H reckless shipping with expensive gear
wordfool wrote:
I imagine a large proportion of lenses sold worldwide today are shipped from retailer to consumer so I cannot imagine this is a terribly likely outcome. It would surely result in an unsustainable level of returns.
I agree and would go even further and say it's a highly unlikely outcome, which is why the vast majority of shipments arrive undamaged, even those packed poorly. It's the confluence of poor packing, very poor handling, and very bad luck which results in the rare case of damage.
