Leica's Quality Control Continues to Disappoint

[Wolfgang Esslinger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I wonder what the fuss is about. We like products that are made by humans, and humans occasionally make errors. It becomes obvious if that human is a goalie - or if he/she is in quality control

 

I once had a black M7 repaired and got it returned with a grey dot instead of the original red one. I assume it can not get much more obvious than that but I liked it.

[earleygallery]

I'd say a good analogy would be collecting a new made to measure suit only to find a stain on the lapel. I'd say it would be annoying.

 

If that were a Voigtlander lens some of you would be ripping them to shreds. For Leica anything less than perfection is failure. They should know their customers well enough.

[euston]

I'm pretty sure Leica can draw their own conclusions about their quality assurance system without the benefit of a jeering mob.

 

Pretty sure but not certain. That is exactly the difficulty. When they release a lens in this condition, confidence in Leica’s ability to operate a sound quality assurance system is eroded.

 

I don’t accept that holding Leica to the standards of quality that it proclaims for itself amounts to being part of a jeering mob.

[bocaburger]

AFAIK the lens ring is anodized black, only the white engraving is painted. Can you see if it is merely excess paint or if the engraving itself is botched? If just excess paint, and this were my lens I would break a Q-tip in half (the kind with rolled paper stalk, not plastic), dip it in thinner, and with magnifier loupes on, carefully clean up the overspill. I'm not suggesting Mark should do this, or that Leica should get off the hook for quality lapses. Just saying what I'd do. (In fact, I'd probably get out the spanner and take the ring off to do it).

[ho_co]

Remember that this is nothing but a nomenclature ring. It's added as one of the final steps in assembly.

 

That is, the lens assembly of optical and mechanical parts is completely separate from the front ring. The front ring is like a hubcap, added just before delivery.

 

The paint smudge shouldn't have occurred, but no conclusions can be drawn from it to the quality control of the lens proper.

 

OTOH, I'm sure most discerning subjects would likely be so offended by the smudge that they wouldn't allow their pictures to be taken with it.

 

And it's certainly good for a couple pages on the forum.

[lct]

Quite true as long as there is not another problem like stiff focus, front focus, rattle noise and the like. Fantastic thing in all that is we still have Chimene's eyes for Leica. Love is blind my friends.

[hendriphile]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

"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.

 

Just curious - where was this particular lens made?

[lct]

Canada.

[budrichard]

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

 

I have managed Quality Assurance Departments and formed new Quality Control Departments for about the same time length. As a Senior Manager, I would never tolerate an attitude where this type of error was acceptable or in any way condoned,

This error is egregious because it is the frontal piece of the product and anyone and everyone will look at it. I have to assume that this product went through multiple hands and eyes with no one either looking at the product or doing anything about the error. The problem could be one employee or Management telling the employee to keep up production or an employee fearful of retribution for causing a mistake,

In any event it is not acceptable.-Dick

 

"I wonder what the fuss is about. We like products that are made by humans, and humans occasionally make errors. It becomes obvious if that human is a goalie - or if he/she is in quality control "

 

Would you fly on an airplane designed or serviced by a human where mistakes are tolerated?

[jaapv]

Well, if the only thing wrong with the airplane was some bird droppings on the windscreen....

[Guest Holy Moly]

"You Never Walk Alone....."

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/84376-another-leica-qc-problem.html

[plasticman]

Well, if the only thing wrong with the airplane was some bird droppings on the windscreen....

 

Jaap - I can only assume you throw in these jaunty remarks in an attempt to derail the discussion?

 

Naturally, the misplacement of some paint on the front ring is no hindrance to the functioning of the lens, and as such it can be dismissed as trivial. But the point being made by some of the posters in this thread, is that these sorts of very obvious mistakes should not make it through the Quality Control process. They are not discussing the fault itself, they are discussing the process.

 

Regrettably, it seems to me that very often you have your politician's hat on, and willfully 'misunderstand' what is actually being said.

[jaapv]

No, not derailing, but pointing out that there is an essential difference between a fault that impairs functioning and one that is purely cosmetic, in response to a flawed comparison.

In the aircraft industry there are different levels of quality control protocols - one for essential systems and one for cosmetic finish, etc..

Have you never flown on an aircraft with a faulty seat, or a loose bit of plastic trim, or a PA system malfunctioning?

Did you doubt the airworthiness to a point that you refused to fly on such a plane?

[andybarton]

Come on Jaap

 

You wouldn't accept a new lens in this condition, any more than Mark has. You'd send it straight back and demand a decent example, just like everyone else would.

 

Trying to argue that "it doesn't really matter", is completely missing the point. It DOES matter, even if all the shots taken through it are prize winners, beautifully sharp etc

[plasticman]

No, not derailing, but pointing out that there is an essential difference in a fault that impairs functioning and one that is purely cosmetic in response to a flawed comparison.

In the aircraft industry there are different levels of quality control protocols - one for essential systems and one for cosmetic finish, etc..

Have you never flown on an aircraft with a faulty seat, or a loose bit of plastic trim, or a PA system malfunctioning?

Did you doubt the airworthiness to a point that you refused to fly on such a plane?

 

As I said - the discussion is about the process that allows these sorts of pretty glaring mistakes to filter all the way through to the customer, not the nature of the fault itself.

 

(and as a matter of fact, I do stop flying airlines if I find they neglect the interior maintenance of their planes, for the simple fact that it betrays a general attitude about maintenance which is not appropriate for a mode of transport where lives are at stake).

[lct]

...It DOES matter, even if all the shots taken through it are prize winners, beautifully sharp etc

+ 1. Not sure if negating the obvious is the best way of defending Leica.

[jaapv]

Come on Jaap

 

You wouldn't accept a new lens in this condition, any more than Mark has. You'd send it straight back and demand a decent example, just like everyone else would.

 

Trying to argue that "it doesn't really matter", is completely missing the point. It DOES matter, even if all the shots taken through it are prize winners, beautifully sharp etc

 

 

 

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.

 

 

But I still see a difference between essential errors and cosmetic ones.

For instance if Leica would offer me a substantial discount on this lens I would consider it and have a go at the paint myself. If the lens had an error that impaired the function I would not consider it, obviously.

 

And to take this up and generalize it to the point of condemning the whole manufacturing process is one bridge to far for me as well.

 

QC will never be 100%. The essential question being : can the system be made closer to watertight, what are the costs and what are the consequences if not? In other words, a hardnosed business decision.

If bringing the failure rate down from for instance 0.01% to 0.001% (figures for illustration purposes only) would increase the price of the lens by 10%, is it not better to accept the occasional failure and replacement costwise, or does the loss of face by the factory and corporate philosophy influence the financial decision?

 

Lambasting Leica on the Internet is wholly moot, apart from a signalling function for the marketing department.

[mmradman]

Did you doubt the airworthiness to a point that you refused to fly on such a plane?

 

It is being known that planes fallout from the skies for number of reasons including poor maintenance. Not a laughing matter for people who perish and their families, shortcomings are identified only afterwards.

As a paying customer you can choose to avoid flying with the carrier with poor safety record. When you order Leica lens at your dealer you usually made major commitment and have to wait and rely on firms reputation that product is both functionally and cosmetically up to expected standard.

The point here is that company whose sale pitch is quality control second to none and charges top price for this extra human touch has duty to deliver accordingly, not to mention duty to its share holder.

Rather than being advocate for Leica and defending indefensible you may, for instance, convey to Leica concerns of its clientele. You are after all on talking terms with Leica after sales people (Frau Andrea) so perhaps you talking to the company would likely do some good to both Leica and all of us.

[jaapv]

It is being known that planes fallout from the skies for number of reasons including poor maintenance. Not a laughing matter for people who perish and their families, shortcomings are identified only afterwards.

 

As a paying customer you can choose to avoid flying with the carrier with poor safety record.

Where did I say otherwise? I pointed out a failing secondary system does not crash an aeroplane, thus it will not be held to the same standard as essential systems.

 

And where am I defending Leica? I strongly resent the accusation that I would somehow find it acceptable that a lens would reach the customer in a less than perfect state.

I think I am fully in the right to point out to the mob that two globs of paint do not mean that Leica is going to the dogs.

It means that the lens should be replaced with an apology and the occurrence should be looked into.

Then, as a QC system cannot be watertight (see my post above and as you point out, airplanes DO fall out of the sky due to technical reasons) we can sit back on the forum and wait for the next occurrence and the OMG posts....

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mmradman]

Where did I say otherwise? I pointed out a failing secondary system does not crash an aeroplane, thus it will not be held to the same standard as essential systems.

 

You are still defending indefensible.

 

Admit it, Leica was wrong to ship and sell, at full price, cosmetically inferior product.