Category talk:Japanese companies

Time for a break-up?

There are lots of Japanese companies, and there promise to be plenty more, now that Rebollo fr and I are merrily creating stubs for Japanese distributors, etc. (Incidentally I don't think this is mere completism-fetishism; instead, it's a way to work out what the hell was going on in Japan -- what was related to what, who was related to whom -- in the thirties, forties and fifties.)

I think that Category:Japanese companies should be subcategorized as:

• Category:Japanese camera makers
• Category:Japanese lens makers
• Category:Japanese distributors (better, I think, than Category:Japanese camera distributors; but note the respective colors of Category:Camera distributors and Category:Distributors)
• Category: Japanese shutter makers

Though I think not:

• Category: Japanese film makers

What do others think?

As always, (a) it's less work to break up a growing category earlier rather than later; however, (b) recategorizing and then changing one's mind is a major waste of time (or worse). -- Hoary 04:19, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

That's a good idea. Maybe moving Category:Camera distributors to Category:Distributors is a good idea too. --Rebollo fr 04:57, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

Right then. I hope to make a start within the next 24 hours. -- Hoary 09:53, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

On further reflection, I'd rather delay the start by 48 hours than make a misstart.

Please consider Vivitar: a corporation distributing photographic equipment. . . . Vivitar became a multinational manufacturing and marketing company with subsidiaries in Japan, West Germany, France, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Switzerland. Though never a camera manufacturer, it has sold cameras under its own label since 1975. It has also sold lenses under its own label. "Vivitar" products aren't sold in Japan (except used or in other freakish circumstances), so I wonder what the Japanese subsidiary does. Anyway, the article's categories include "Camera distributors" (NB not makers) and "Lens makers" (NB not distributors).

I really have no idea of how Vivitar works. Does its mysterious Japanese branch visit Canon, Sanyo, Casio et al., and say "We'll buy 20,000 of the Zoomacronic 4000V off you if you can do them not in black but in matte silver with a bright silver stripe and have them say 'Vivitar Gonzotron 8000X' "?

Lewis's book suggests that for at least some cameras it does not do this. At least for the cameras that the book bothers to mention, Vivitar had an original design and found a company to manufacture this for it.

Meanwhile, there's Nikkorex F: made by Mamiya for Nikon, also sold as Nikkor J and Sears SL II. Should we say that Mamiya is the maker and Nikon (like Sears) the distributor? But though there's a link to Mamiya, it's in the Nikon category, and I don't think that Nikon itself is in the distributors category.

I know about as little about the Nikkorex F as I know about Vivitar, but I think that Nikon designed it, rather than subcontracted the design as well to Mamiya (or any other company). Lewis doesn't mention Mamiya in connection with the Nikkorex.

I tentatively conclude that Vivitar's relationship to at least some "Vivitar" cameras is much like Nikon's relationship to the Nikkorex. And that it's much like the relationship between most "makers" and "their" products these days: the company is in Japan, perhaps producing the most expensive or most prestigious models, while the bulk of manufacture is done by other companies, perhaps in Japan, perhaps in Malaysia or somewhere else. Moreover, this isn't a new idea: few early 50s Japanese camera "makers" have really been investigated, but those investigations have turned up odd deals (consider Takane and its arrangements with Ofuna, Zunow and Aires).

Should we say that we're using "maker" to mean "designer"? I really don't know.... Hoary 17:58, 7 August 2006 (EDT)