[Leica] Leica quality

[Iain.Dawson@ea.gov.au (Iain Dawson)]

     A few days ago I was in a camera store which had for sale a used 35mm 
     1.4 Asph in chrome finish.  The lens was only 6 months old, 
     cosmetically and optically like new, and competitively priced compared 
     with a brand new lens.  I was slightly tempted and so had a closer 
     look. The temptation was easily overcome.  The aperture ring was 
     rougher and sloppier (and noisier) than any lens I have ever used, 
     (including a very worn Zuiko 50mm 1.2 I used to own that didn't even 
     have ballbearings in it).  A 90mm f2 was also available from the same 
     outfit that was being sold (which included a chrome M6)and which was 
     all the same age.  The aperture ring was better, but not by much. No 
     wonder the original owner had parted with it all.
     
     I mentioned this to the manager of my usual photo store, who told me 
     that one of his customers had bought two R8 cameras which had both 
     developed light leaks.  Okay, this is hearsay.  But assuming that 
     these are not isolated occurrences (recent LUG correspondence suggests 
     they are not)the obvious question is what on earth are we paying Leica 
     prices for?  It certainly does not appear to be for reliability or 
     quality control. The original owner may have been able to return the 
     lenses under warranty, but as anyone who knows anything about quality 
     asssurance will tell you, this is not a desirable or efficient 
     approach to the problem.  If you let your customers do the final 
     checking you will lose them and your reputation will suffer. 
     
     I sincerely hope that Leica will get their act together soon before it 
     is too late.
     
     Iain Dawson