Is there nothing they won't fake?

Sure, we're all aware and wary of fake memory cards, designer watches, clothes, perfumes, etc.

But this!?

I bought the above at a local outdoor market, admittedly at a suspiciously low price (£1) and the packaging didn't look or 'feel' quite right. So it was bought more out of curiosity than any hope of an absolute bargain.

 

In fact the seals on the plastic keeper were still intact when I bought it... but of course when I opened it I was greeted by a circle of plain glass in a slimline aluminium frame. The glass isn't even single AR coated, let alone multicoated or having a dirt-resistent coating. In short a total fake; although the frame actually looks half-decently made.

 

I could easily see someone being taken in by this in an online sale, where the low quality of the packaging wasn't obvious. So just beware! :eek:

Amazing! As for the real item, I use the non-UV "protector" on most of my lenses and they work well. A bit more than (£1) though.

Short answer is no. My take is that where anyone can make a buck producing a fake (of anything) they will. Interestingly, at the bottom of Hoya's PRO1D UV webpage there's an explicit warning:

 

ATTENTION: BE AWARE OF COUNTERFEIT FILTERS

In order to avoid purchasing one of those counterfeit filters we highly recommend to purchase only from official retailers that are recognized by HOYA's official global distributors. Prior the purchase kindly inquire and verify whether a retailer is authorized by HOYA global distributors.

 

At ephotozine.com, there's a 2012 article on HOYA Pro1 Digital Fake Filters. So it seems the 'filter fake' problem has been around for at least 10 years. In this 2012 article, the author says that fake filters can sell for as much as £10. So at least you got your fake at a bargain price!;)

 

But more seriously, I can well imagine these (and other) fakes being sold with some kind of story ('second-hand, hardly used, good as new') on sites like E-bay or indeed at 2nd-hand markets. So caution is indeed advised.

 

Completely OT but I once visited someone who collected classic cameras. His pride and joy was an inscribed "Leica" camera 'exclusively issued to press photographers during the 1939 Berlin Olympics'. I found it so interesting that I posted my photo of the camera on PN. Turned out it was one of the fakes that were turned out in their thousands (based on much cheaper cameras) in Eastern Europe for years later. So even 'classic cameras' can be faked. Not to mention all the current fake clothing brands.

 

Again OT but I play tenor sax and in this sector too there are fakes of well-known 'vintage' (and even modern) saxes offered for sale to unsuspecting buyers via E-bay and other sites.

 

So my advice is always;

- buy where possible from a reputable store

- otherwise, be very cautious

- if a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't

 

With just a £1 investment it seems that you were under no illusions that the filter could be the 'real thing' (that retails between £30 - £40) At least you got a great story to tell;)

I never really took UV filters seriously as far as their functionality. I purchased them because when I first got into Photography(back in the 80's) that was the thing to do. I figured what the heck, they don't cost very much and they can protect your lens from dirt and scratches. For critical work I use to take them off. These days I often have to take pictures right after sunrise. I compared pictures taken with the UV filter and without and to my amazement the UV does filter out the blueish tint and some of the Haze around that time of the day. So now I don't feel that bad after buying UV filters for some/most of my important lenses. Actually, not all UV filters are cheap. The UV filters made by B+W can run you quite a bit, especially the larger one 67mm and up !

I have UV filters (cheap, second-hand, mainly unbranded) on all my lenses, treating them like a kind of transparent screw-in lens cap. In bad conditions (sea, sand, rain, snow, dust - UK summer, in other words) they stay on - when (if !) weather improves, back in the bag. Never compared images with / without - mainly cos I can't recall the occasions when I have perforce had to use them.

..... treating them like a kind of transparent screw-in lens cap.

Agreed.

I was about 90% certain that the filter in question would turn out to be fake, but thought "What the heck? If it's a fake at least I'll have a transparent lens cap, and a plastic case to keep one of my genuine filters in."

But had the same item been offered online for a higher price, I might well have been 'bitten' and much more aggrieved.

 

The most astounding thing to me was that the glass was swaged into its quite well-made aluminium holder exactly like the genuine article. And with just a bit more effort to pass the glass through a vacuum deposition chamber, the fakers could be giving Hoya some real and entirely legitimate competition!

Worth the price for the photo-op.

I wonder what the guy originally paid who you bought it from?

Completely OT but I once visited someone who collected classic cameras. His pride and joy was an inscribed "Leica" camera 'exclusively issued to press photographers during the 1939 Berlin Olympics'.

 

It was inscribed for the 1939 Olympics??? That should be the tip-off right there as the Berlin Olympics were in 1936. (or was 1939 a typo?)

 

If you buy a B+W, they have a verification scan.

 

 

I wonder what the guy originally paid who you bought it from?

The filter was unopened when I bought it and the stall was filled with other assorted 'new' and mostly unbranded items such as you might find online at *Bay or *mazon. So I suspect the trader had bought a bulk load of returns from somewhere, and for not very much money.

The prices for all the tat on offer were very low.

 

I bought a set of non-oem printer cartridges from the same stall at a giveaway price too. We'll see how they pan out.

Edited April 11, 2022 by rodeo_joe|1

My mistake. The fakes had the right year..

 

It was inscribed for the 1939 Olympics??? That should be the tip-off right there as the Berlin Olympics were in 1936. (or was 1939 a typo?)

 

If you buy a B+W, they have a verification scan.

 

[ATTACH=full]1423233[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH=full]1423234[/ATTACH]

Like dirt on the front of a lens, really lousy quality filters do less harm to the image than you'd think.

 

see my actual comparative test of "pop-bottle" filters at How much difference do filters make in image quality? - An empirical test

 

For critical use, of course, buy real filters from a reliable dealer or the manufacturer.

I once purchased a supposedly brand new Battery Grip for my Canon 6D. It came in the mail in about a week. Everything looked legitimate, the box, the packaging, the invoice everything. However, when I tried attaching the Grip to my camera it wouldn't fit. I thought I was doing something wrong, so I scoured the Web for Canon Manuals. Nothing worked...

 

I even tried to squeeze the grip unto the camera but stopped just short of damaging the camera. Furious, I contacted eBay's Fraud department. It was like trying to break into Fort Knox to get my money back. Apparently the seller had an office on the East-Coast which was listed on eBay, this is where I thought the Grip was coming from. The seller relied on an office located in California, which was subsidiary of another company located in China.

 

eBay had to dig through all this mess to give me my money back. What I resented is that eBay seemed to side with the 'seller' instead of me, the guy that got duped.

There have been stories about fake birth control pills, or other contraceptive devices.

 

At least with the filter, the worst case is a bad photograph.

 

At the beginning of Covid (maybe still) there were stories about fake face masks

and other medical equipment.

 

Though I have also heard of cases where the fakes (I don't remember of what)

turned out better than the original.

 

I have bought some filters from Goodwill auctions, usually by the bag, and

for less than $1 each.

Like dirt on the front of a lens, really lousy quality filters do less harm to the image than you'd think.

 

 

(snip)

 

I have a Canon Pellix with a noticeably dusty mirror. I have only had one roll through it,

but it seems to work fine. But I didn't try it for anything that needed the highest

quality images.

Ah! The Pellix, an exception to the rule that dust on the mirror doesn't matter at all:(

Though I have also heard of cases where the fakes (I don't remember of what)

turned out better than the original.

 

During the US Civil War counterfeit Confederate paper money was often better than the "real" thing.

Hoya’s “warning” bring this thought to mind:

 

Perhaps (sometimes?) the “fakes” are also funded by original manufacturers- who profit doubly while also allowing folks of lesser means to enjoy things they otherwise couldn’t afford?

 

Fun for everyone?

Capitalism squares the circle?

who profit doubly while also allowing folks of lesser means to enjoy things they otherwise couldn’t afford?

The fake market usually doesn't work like that in the field of technology - most fake memory cards, for example, will lose your data for you, and that's no 'bargain' at any price.

OTOH, there are 'fakes' that simply steal a Logo, design or use lookalike packaging. In which case the (usually overpriced) designer label brand is the main loser. A fake Rolex watch, for instance, is probably going to tell the time just as accurately as the real thing, and unless the fake is priced as extortionately as the genuine article nobody really loses.

 

In the case of those Hoya filters though, it appears that the deception is aimed clearly at ripping off the end user. By providing an inferior product masquerading as the genuine article.

 

However, the above comment begs the question of when a brand-name or Logo ceases to have any significance. Does a Chinese made camera or lens legally bearing a famous Japanese or German company's name carry the same cachet? Especially if the obvious savings of using a cheap-labour market are barely passed on to the consumer.

Edited April 17, 2022 by rodeo_joe|1

Brand name goods, genuine and fake, have been known to be made in the same factory, by the same people, using the same materials. The only difference being the way the goods get on the market.

Brand name goods, genuine and fake, have been known to be made in the same factory, by the same people, using the same materials. The only difference being the way the goods get on the market.

I think you're defining a "gray market". Many camera manufacturers engage in that all the time.

I think you're defining a "gray market". Many camera manufacturers engage in that all the time.

No. Grey market is an unofficial import and sale of genuine goods that are part of what the brand company ordered and received. What i am referring to is goods leaving the factory that aren't part of the production ordered by and delivered to the brand company. Can happen because of the production of almost everything now being outsourced.

These are fakes, only because they are not part of the 'official' stream of goods. But genuine, because they differ in nothing from the goods that are delivered to and sold by the brand company. 'Cut out the middle man' and all that.

Edited April 18, 2022 by q.g._de_bakker

Hoya’s “warning” bring this thought to mind:

 

Perhaps (sometimes?) the “fakes” are also funded by original manufacturers- who profit doubly while also allowing folks of lesser means to enjoy things they otherwise couldn’t afford?

 

Fun for everyone?

Capitalism squares the circle?

 

It might depend on what you mean by fake.

 

As well as I know, store brand items are often made by the same company that makes

the one that looks just like it. The company that already has the production equipment.

(That is more obvious for foods and such, but could be any store brand item.)

 

But fakes using the trademark tend to decrease the brand value.

 

As may favorite auto shop told me, the car companies don't make a lot of the

parts that go into cars, and often you can buy them from the company that makes

them, with that company's name on it, and for a lot less. For most, it is well

known who makes them.

 

But yes, much of marketing is designed to give those who can only afford less,

the chance to buy them. Coupons are a favorite, which gives those who work just

a little bit harder (to find and cut out the coupon) the lower price, for exactly

the same item. Those in a rush pay more, often called a "convenience fee".

(snip)

 

However, the above comment begs the question of when a brand-name or Logo ceases to have any significance. Does a Chinese made camera or lens legally bearing a famous Japanese or German company's name carry the same cachet? Especially if the obvious savings of using a cheap-labour market are barely passed on to the consumer.

 

When I was young, my father explained how the early Canon rangefinders were copies of Leicas. That there were some screws in the Leica that didn't do anything, and were also in the Canon. I only recently learned that, as part of the war ending deal, Germany lost all their patents. But then Canon quickly innovated, passing by Leica, such as with the metal focal plane shutter. (The first Canon I knew was, and still is, a Canon VI.)

 

For some years, Japanese products were considered inferior. Even now, my dad only buys Canon cameras.

 

But the actual "made in" label is only where the final production steps as done. Many of the parts are made,

and often partly assembled somewhere else. Cachet is funny, though, and may not have much to

do with actual quality.

No. Grey market is an unofficial import and sale of genuine goods that are part of what the brand company ordered and received. What i am referring to is goods leaving the factory that aren't part of the production ordered by and delivered to the brand company. Can happen because of the production of almost everything now being outsourced.

These are fakes, only because they are not part of the 'official' stream of goods. But genuine, because they differ in nothing from the goods that are delivered to and sold by the brand company. 'Cut out the middle man' and all that.

Is that happening to Nikon and others let's say in China? The Chinese manufacturer making it for Nikon runs off an extra 500 copies of the lens or camera and sells it internally in China or elsewhere. Nikon doesn't find out about it even though there are serial numbers. What if someone sends it in for warranty repairs? Nikon will either have serial numbers never reported by the Chinese company. Or there will be duplicates filed under warranty with their company flagging the fraud. The Chinese company would be taking a huge chance of losing its contract with Nikon. Do you have a case where this has happened?