John McMaster Posted October 9, 2016 Share #21 Posted October 9, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) As did mine ;-) john Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 Hi John McMaster, Take a look here Upcoming visit to Leica Wetzlar. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Deliberate1 Posted October 9, 2016 Share #22 Posted October 9, 2016 As did mine ;-) john But it leaped out two weeks ago to acquire that minty 35mm Summarit. What a gem. David Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan.y Posted October 10, 2016 Share #23 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) All S lenses were inspected for the defective focus mechanism component that fails. None of my lenses contain that component. As I understand it, the solution to the autofocus failure is permanent. My interpretation of the situation is as follows: The defective component was not part of the sub-assembly of all lenses. It is not known by Leica which lenses contain the defective components. The only way to know if a lens has the defective component is to open the lens and inspect, as was done with my lenses. Therefore, I would not expect a recall. I was hoping your visit would clarify the AF failure issue, but it remains mystifying on several counts. Leica does not know which particular lenses contain the defective component (which I understand from your report is randomly defective), but surely it should know when its QA caught up and which batches of lenses are sure not to contain this defect? I have already had two lenses repaired and will have a third lens repaired soon. Should I expect the two earlier-repaired lenses to probably fail or not again? The third point in particular sounds very irresponsible to me. Essentially Leica has transferred the burden of its QA to its users. The solution it has offered us is to hope (with no objective data) our lenses won't fail, or else actually "wait" for them to fail. Other users have reported Leica's refusal to do "preventive" repairs on S lenses. Does your report suggest users must complain to Leica or visit them in person for ad hoc treatment? Edited October 10, 2016 by alan.y Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan.y Posted October 10, 2016 Share #24 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) Leica's whole approach to the AF problem has been bizarre: having Stephan Schultz assure us via surrogates that Leica is "aware" of the AF problem and is "committed" to the S (without addressing the issue head on) and extending ad hoc invitations and promises to users who have complained with particular vigor. Does Leica really not think the AF problem is serious enough to address holistically? Or do the user reports here truly not reflect the general reality? Either way, why is it so hard for Leica just to issue an official statement? It would be helpful even if the statement were to say (as Djmay reported above) essentially that Leica is just as clueless as us. Edited October 10, 2016 by alan.y Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted October 10, 2016 Share #25 Posted October 10, 2016 I was hoping your visit would clarify the AF failure issue, but it remains mystifying on several counts. Leica does not know which particular lenses contain the defective component (which I understand from your report is randomly defective), but surely it should know when its QA caught up and which batches lenses are sure not to contain this defect? The third point in particular sounds very irresponsible to me. Essentially Leica has transferred the burden of its QA to its users. The solution it has offered us is to hope (with no objective data) our lenses won't fail, or else actually "wait" for them to fail. Alan, I have to disagree with you on your last point. As well, if djmay is right in his understanding of the situation, I think the issue HAS been clarified somehow. In short, and to look at the good side, my understanding is that now we can say that there is a very good chance that, if your lenses won't fail for a while, they never will. Before this thread, things stood differently, since the common understanding was that ALL lenses could fail, at some point. I don't know about you, but I sure prefer this new scenario What I do agree with you is this: at least as far as I understand a production process, Leica should be able to figure out what batch or batches might contain the defective part. Perhaps they could, and perhaps they did, but perhaps since the defective part might not be necessarily going to break in one's lens' lifetime (different way of using the lens might be a factor as well), they will not issue a recall. I.e., I for one do use my lenses most of the time manually focused according to the DOF scale on the top screen; I am sure that a fashion / wedding / portrait photographer would use AF much more and more heavily than I do, thus stressing the AF component much more than I do. This doesn't mean that I think it's right that my lens (i.e.) shall keep containing a potentially defective part, and that my lens (i.e.) shall be under a Damocles' sword for all its lifetime; I just think that it makes sense on Leica's part to keep promptly replacing for free defective parts when they break (keywords here are "promptly" and "for free", of course), rather than issuing a general recall which would make everyone wait for their lenses for a long time, and without the possibility of giving loaners to everyone, even if their lenses don't need the replacement. Most importantly, thank you djmay for your work and your report, very much appreciated. Best, Vieri 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan.y Posted October 10, 2016 Share #26 Posted October 10, 2016 I can see how a general recall would not be practical or advisable. I still think a holistic and official and objective statement is long, long overdue--instead of anecdotal reports, tidbits of contradictory info (NeilD's "just wait until October" versus DJMay's report), ad hoc treatments, and vague promises and assurances via surrogates. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John McMaster Posted October 10, 2016 Share #27 Posted October 10, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) What I do agree with you is this: at least as far as I understand a production process, Leica should be able to figure out what batch or batches might contain the defective part. When my 120/2.5 AF died last year I was sent back a different lens due to my original not having spare parts. This replacement lens AF has recently died (currently in Wetzlar), just as the previous one it worked for part of the day then just died. All lenses have died when turning camera on, none have done it while camera is 'live'. I have done no firmware upgrades for a while as I own an S2-P... john 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EoinC Posted October 10, 2016 Share #28 Posted October 10, 2016 Alan, I have to disagree with you on your last point. As well, if djmay is right in his understanding of the situation, I think the issue HAS been clarified somehow... Hi, Vieri. Your level of expectation of a manufacturer appears to be different to mine, which is why I turned away from purchasing an S-system. That expectation is not on designs not having failures, but rather on the response to identifying and dealing with such failures. If Leica is not able to contact all registered owners of affected S lenses, and leaves it up to internet forums to distribute responses, I think there may be a gap in their understanding of (some) existing and potential customer expectations. I may have a masochistic streak for cutting off my nose to spite my face, but it is this lack of universal response which turned me away on the cusp of joining the S clan. It may be the mark of the artisan to work on ad hoc responses, but I'm not really looking for an artisan in equipment manufacture. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 10, 2016 Share #29 Posted October 10, 2016 While I appreciate djmay's report, his 'negatives' (described in post #14) makes it seem as if one hand doesn't know what the other is doing. And that's the way this whole issue comes off to me. Unless and until Leica officially communicates the situation to all users (as Stefan Daniel eventually posted here concerning M8/8.2 display coffee stains, or as LUF Admin posted regarding M9 sensor corrosion), I consider it to be no response, at least not a professional or credible one. Agreeing to repair broken lenses for free doesn't suffice. I'm genuinely interested in the S system, wanting to consider it (along with several other alternatives) for purchase as a complement to my M. But until I gain comfort with Leica's position on, and solution to (or at least approach to) this issue, it's off the table. And that unfortunately speaks more broadly to me about the company. I'm sure I'm not the only one....even though there are happy users among us. Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan.y Posted October 10, 2016 Share #30 Posted October 10, 2016 The question that arises for me is: If Leica has been aware of the unacceptably high probability* of defect, but has not had a permanent solution (until "October"), has it actually been knowingly producing probably defective lenses and "repairing" them identically? That is, transferring QA and risks of failure to its users, by letting users field test its products and offering "free" repairs to the failures? *Of course all manufacturing processes are probably defective. By anecdotal reports the S lenses' failures are unacceptably probable (my own count: 3 out of 5). Leica will need to release some statistics, which it and only it has, to disprove this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan.y Posted October 10, 2016 Share #31 Posted October 10, 2016 It may be the mark of the artisan to work on ad hoc responses, but I'm not really looking for an artisan in equipment manufacture. I think I can live with a small company being artisanal, but it should be accompanied with the transparency and nimbleness of such. Perhaps the cryptic non-response to the S AF issue is symptomatic of a kind of uncertainty with its identity. Or is it pride? Honestly I think I would be relieved if Leica simply came out and admitted they screwed up and that they were as clueless as everybody--or have been until recently. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddhaarta Posted October 10, 2016 Share #32 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) I am astonished that Leica at this point seems to be still not understanding that this intransparent communication approach is hurting their brand and S sales much, much more than any honest official statement about S problems possibly could hurt them. Look at the Leica talk in forums like Lula, GetDPI ore here …, look at the resale values of Leica S lenses on eBay... Sorry, Leica, this is just plain stupid. WAKE UP, Herr Dr. Kaufmann !!!!! Edited October 10, 2016 by siddhaarta Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiaubauu2009 Posted October 10, 2016 Share #33 Posted October 10, 2016 I think I can live with a small company being artisanal, but it should be accompanied with the transparency and nimbleness of such. Perhaps the cryptic non-response to the S AF issue is symptomatic of a kind of uncertainty with its identity. Or is it pride? Honestly I think I would be relieved if Leica simply came out and admitted they screwed up and that they were as clueless as everybody--or have been until recently. Well, Alan, Leica should know about this AF issue long ago. Their representatives came over to Shanghai to meet all the Resaler and one of them complain loudly to the Leica reps that S lens came over new and has broken AF and the rate is pretty high too. The reps go pissed of at them and just left the meeting. Anyway, that's what my dealer told me. (my dealer being the person asking the question). So, their attitude to customer and reseller is completely different I suppose. Friendly ignorance to customer.... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted October 10, 2016 Share #34 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) I just think that it makes sense on Leica's part to keep promptly replacing for free defective parts when they break (keywords here are "promptly" and "for free", of course), rather than issuing a general recall which would make everyone wait for their lenses for a long time, and without the possibility of giving loaners to everyone, even if their lenses don't need the replacement. I don't disagree with this if with promptly you mean within a period shorter than the current average of 2-3 months. Edited October 10, 2016 by JorisV Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan.y Posted October 11, 2016 Share #35 Posted October 11, 2016 (edited) I don't disagree with this if with promptly you mean within a period shorter than the current average of 2-3 months.Unacceptably long wait time is just another expression of the unacceptable high failure rates--too many failures overstretch Leica's resources. Its just a natural consequence of the same fundamental problem to which Leica apparently does not have an official and definitive solution. Simply acknowledging it would be a start. Edited October 11, 2016 by alan.y Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted October 12, 2016 Share #36 Posted October 12, 2016 I don't disagree with this if with promptly you mean within a period shorter than the current average of 2-3 months. Indeed I do. I also hope that the new Professional division is meant to address support / speed / repair turnaround times / etc, among other things, at least this is what I gather from said division's boss' interview with David Farkas at Potokina - time will tell, but it seems to me that (lack of an open statement aside) Leica is well aware of the S situation, of how this situation is hurting S sales and system growth, and is working to rectify it. Best, Vieri Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.