Leica's Quality Control Continues to Disappoint

[uroman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

you have to really wonder about the actual glass on this lens if it passed QC. Maybe you should request a whole new one. That would seem like the proper thing to do from a customer service perspective.

I hope leica takes care of you.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[jaapv]

Are you saying the paint is on the glass? That is disgraceful!

[marknorton]

But do try the lens. It's probably out of focus at mid distances.

 

That's the good news, focusses perfectly, better than the black one which has been back twice to be fixed.

[pop]

Misprints of postage stamps are much sought after.

[delander †]

Well it is a small thing in itself, but you have to bear in mind that Leica make point of showing how the paint is put in by hand. It is sloppy work, and Leica try to differentiate themselves by hand work and attention to detail.

 

Perhaps Mark you will have better experience with Leica Mayfair than previoudly.

 

Jeff

[gyoung]

I have Meyer Optik Goerlitz 50mm f2.8 Domiplan lens which I bought in 1971 for my very first SLR, a Praktica L. It cost about £7 new and it doesn't have the problem either.

 

As far as I remember, the only positive thing that can be said for the Domiplan is that its probably cheaper than a body cap

 

Gerry

[SangNguyen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

People seemed to have had their share of Lenses that arrive with problems.

 

Myself included

 

What is your example?

 

Sang

[euston]

Sheesh- it is just two little globs of paint. They should not be there I fully agree and I would not accept it just like Mark. But to regard it as a major error:rolleyes: it does not make one darn difference to the quality of the lens.

 

I can't agree. It is not just two little globs of paint. It is a flawed or non-existent quality assurance system. That's very serious. It makes you wonder what else they're missing that isn't so obvious. People don't pay Leica prices for near enough is good enough quality. Leica is putting its reputation at risk when it lets even this kind of surface error through. You're not doing Leica any favours by seeking to minimise its significance.

[delander †]

I'm afraid it is simply a case of must do better as far as Leica is concerned.

 

Jeff

[uroman]

I can't agree. It is not just two little globs of paint. It is a flawed or non-existent quality assurance system. That's very serious. It makes you wonder what else they're missing that isn't so obvious. People don't pay Leica prices for near enough is good enough quality. Leica is putting its reputation at risk when it lets even this kind of surface error through. You're not doing Leica any favours by seeking to minimise its significance.

 

I would not accept this error on a cheaper lens. It would not be acceptable on a 'rit or a 'cron, or any lens from zeiss or canon.

However, accidents do happen, and the real issue is why this error wasn't noticed in the factory.

[bbbonthemoon]

There should be test certificate included with the lens, showing signature of person being in charge for quality control for this particular lens.

[lct]

Got that kind of paint smudges when Leica's QC became to decline... 30 years ago.

[budrichard]

Sheesh- it is just two little globs of paint. They should not be there I fully agree and I would not accept it just like Mark. But to regard it as a major error:rolleyes: it does not make one darn difference to the quality of the lens.

 

In the Quality Assurance world, if you find one or two problems, you can rest assured that you are just looking at the 'tip of the iceberg'. Quality Assurance properly applied, assures that NO problems arise.

In 50 years of purchasing lenses, I have never seen anything like that from any supplier.-Dick

[jaapv]

I can't agree. It is not just two little globs of paint. It is a flawed or non-existent quality assurance system. That's very serious. It makes you wonder what else they're missing that isn't so obvious. People don't pay Leica prices for near enough is good enough quality. Leica is putting its reputation at risk when it lets even this kind of surface error through. You're not doing Leica any favours by seeking to minimise its significance.

I'm not minimizing anything. I said I found it not acceptable, in case you missed my post.

I dislike Internet frenzies, though.

[nick.edwards1]

I have worked in manufacturing in quality control and quality systems for almost 40 years.

 

The example of the faulty lettering is typical of the things that can go wrong in volume manufacturing.

 

These things occur more often in manufacturing processes that are more manual and labour intensive (i.e. hand done) than from high volume fully automated systems.

 

The occurrence of such examples does not mean that the company manufacturing the product is a low quality producer.

 

We choose products from prestige manufacturers like Mercedes, Rolex, Meile, Villeroy and Boch, Leica..etc. based on their reputations and as a result we have certain expectations from their products.

 

These reputations have been built on the values an philosophies of the companies concerned which translates amongst other things into their R & D in products, methods, materials and processes where expertise is developed and customer service in all cases is world class.

 

So when we purchase one of these products and it fails to meet our expectation - the product is rubbish and the company is ‘crap’ :- right -: well no, not really. You still have a top quality product made with the finest materials with the latest and best in technology.

 

So in the real world as customers we have choices - we know that the manufacturer and their retailers will do whatever is necessary to put things right and endeavor to satisfy customer needs.

 

However I would suggest that as consumers we need to ask ourselves the question - ‘Does what I am complaining about really matter’ - only the customer can answer this question, but I would suggest that where the problem does not impinge on functionality and performance we should be realistic with our demands. This is not to say that we should ever accept poor quality.

 

If our demands are unnecessary or unrealistic it is only society that suffers in the long term.

 

Hope this is useful.

 

Best regards,

 

Nick.

[lct]

"Thin" Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 from 1979. I bought it new then and i kept it as is to avoid waiting times. Nothing new under the sun.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[delander †]

The inconvenience to the customer that the return of goods means is often forgotten in these cases. It is the customer that has to spend time sorting the situation out, it is the customer that is without what he or she paid for while it is being repaired, although the problem is no fault of the customer. The customer receives no compensation from the manufacturer.

 

Jeff

[lct]

We are not vulgar customers at all. We are associated in a common venture and we are allowed to thank Leica for the entrance ticket they gave us for (almost) free.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[euston]

I'm not minimizing anything. I said I found it not acceptable, in case you missed my post.

I dislike Internet frenzies, though.

 

If you don’t want to give the impression of minimising an issue, don’t say "Sheesh - it is just two little globs of paint" or insert a rolling eyes smiley to indicate how ludicrous you think it would be to regard it as a major error.

 

The point that I and others are making is that even apparently minor mistakes reveal what may be a serious weakness in the quality assurance system when they are not picked up. Customers don't expect to have to serve as Leica's quality long-stop. Some of us are disturbed by reports of shoddy workmanship from a company that prides itself on the quality of its products and prices them accordingly. Reputation is everything for Leica. When things like this are reported, its reputation takes a knock. This lens should never have found its way into the hands of a paying customer in this condition. The fact that it did is a major error. I hope that Leica recognises it as such, even if there are those on this forum who do not.

 

I wouldn’t describe a conversation on the Leica User Forum as an Internet frenzy but, if it is, it is those who play down Leica’s shortcomings who make it so.

[jaapv]

I disagree. Keeping a sense of proportion is not a bad idea. Nor is it "playing down" or minimizing. I'm pretty sure Leica can draw their own conclusions about their quality assurance system without the benefit of a jeering mob. -Not talking about the sensible reactions in this thread - plenty of those.