[Leica] Re: Leica quality

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

     Dave
     
     Point taken.  You are quite correct, I didn't know the full history of 
     the lens in question so I can't blame Leica for poor quality control. 
     Used means used - though this whole outfit looked as if it hadn't 
     been.  Perhaps it had been in an environment with lots of vibration or 
     something.  Similarly the owner of the 2 R8s may have done something 
     with them that caused the light leaks. 
     
     The questions arise though about where a manufacturer's responsibilty 
     for reliabilty ends, and is Leica design and quality control good 
     enough for the price we pay? It must be pretty hard from Leica's point 
     of view to build precision optical equipment that will take the sort 
     of abuse any portable goods are likely to get.  There again they have 
     a lot of experience of it.  I suppose we can only really judge them in 
     comparison to other manufacturers, and in the absence of any 
     quantitative data we all tend to rely on anecdotal evidence when 
     forming our opinions.
     
     Iain
     
     <<I'd be cautious blaming a manufacturer's quality control on the 
     condition
     of a used lens. Even one that was relatively new. Over the years I've 
     seen
     some strange mishaps that harmed cameras or lenses, but certainly 
     weren't
     the fault of the manufacturer. I once loaned a month old Nikkor lens 
     to a
     friend of mine. It looked fine when he returned it 3 days later. 
     Unfortunately, it didn't act fine. He'd taken it to the beach. The 
     Nikon
     repairman asked if it had been buried in sand. It was an unpleasant 
     lesson
     for me.
     
     Dave>>