Leica's Quality Control Continues to Disappoint

[theendlesshouse]

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 "

 

Made by robots, assembled by humans, there is a huge difference.

[AlanG]

Regardless of how anyone spins it, if an obvious cosmetic flaw is allowed to pass, it will raise the suspicion that something else that is incorrect but not so obvious may also have passed. That is why the appearance of an item is important or manufacturers would simply not care if many of their lenses had paint blobs or poor finish on the barrels.

 

Why would the standards of the person who approves the cosmetic appearance of a lens be lower than the standards of one who approves the performance of a lens?

[pop]

One is a matter of priorities. The lens is fit for its stated purpose. It makes an optical image of satisfactory quality and handles in a way consistent with a precision instrument. A little excess color on its case will not influence its working. It also will not influence the subjects of the pictures to be taken in any way whatsoever. It is a cosmetic defect.

 

Some people are able to ignore cosmetic defects. Some will raise a hue and cry as if it was a cosmic defect. Some will just return it for correction or replacement. Such is life.

 

Another point in case is the opinion that once some defect is found in a product - however non-major it may be - that you can't be sure that there aren't quite a few more hidden defects present.

 

That way lies madness. If you think so, you can easily convince yourself that there must be hidden defects in the same product and, hence, in all products by that vendor. Be alarmed. Your front elements of your lenses will be shattered, the mechanisms become stuck and your camera will fall apart at your next outing. Or not.

[plasticman]

The funniest thing about this thread is the (self)righteous indignation and alarmist exaggeration of Leica's defenders.

 

The fault was modest, but so was the criticism of Leica's quality control. You could not have guessed this from the reaction of the fans.

[pop]

The fault was modest, but so was the criticism of Leica's quality control.

 

Really?

 

Makes you wonder how ANYONE looking through the lens and concentrating on their job instead of thinking about what's for lunch could miss it.

 

Not so modest criticism where I live.

[lct]

...You could not have guessed this from the reaction of the fans.

Really?

[mmradman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Really?

 

 

 

Not so modest criticism where I live.

 

Phillip,

As a Swiss national you seem to have shown in this thread unusually cavalier attitude towards quality of industrial products. You can tell BS to naive and gullible and get away with it once or twice but not those who require; (a) dependable services and products and ( cosmetically correct products.

Let me illustrate this for you. Imagine you run or work for business and your product develops unacceptable QC issues and you start using similar reasoning you are using here to deflect justified concerns about Leica QC. Now imagine I used to buy your product but now I have problems with it and you as a seller is trying to pull wool over my eyes telling me stories rather than face the problem and promptly mitigate issues at hand. Rest assured that our business cooperation would go downhill with negative financial effect to your business.

Leica is iconic brand but first and foremost it is industrial producer and success of the brand depends on the customer satisfaction and being kept in good esteem at all times. Product defects are not uncommon, what differentiates good businesses from not so good businesses is the way how they deal with the defects. I have confidence that Leica has the maturity and self interest to face own defects and deal with them.

I don’t think Leica needs apologists.

You are not helping Leica.

Everybody else blindly defending is not helping the brand which, no doubt, we all appreciate.

We, as users need to speak with one voice and convey to Leica at all times that considering its own reputation and price point we expect they do their duty.

[jaapv]

Wow, that is an emotional overdose!

 

cavalier attitude, BS, naive and gullible, unacceptable, justified concerns, pull wool over eyes, telling stories, maturity and self interest, apologists, blindly defending, do their duty....

 

Don't you think you are overstating the case a bit? - There were two globs of paint on a ring, the lens was returned and undoubtedly will be in Mark's hands in a pristine state before long - that is all.

[lct]

Would you like a bent Spirit of Extasy on your Rolls Royce?

[jaapv]

No- I would just get them to replace it.

[lct]

And i would just say: i don't want that, give me a proper car right now, not in two weeks.

[jaapv]

Well, yes, I can sympathize with that, as I would probably want it to be replaced by a Bentley. I think the new VolksRoyce is about the ugliest thing on the road... However it is quite academic, as I cannot afford either in a thousand years.

[Dutch]

Leica is iconic brand but first and foremost it is industrial producer and success of the brand depends on the customer satisfaction and being kept in good esteem at all times. Product defects are not uncommon, what differentiates good businesses from not so good businesses is the way how they deal with the defects. I have confidence that Leica has the maturity and self interest to face own defects and deal with them.

Is there any indication that the modest flaw of the OP represents a structural problem within Leica's quality control? And does it warrant a generalized condemnation of Leica's overall performance quality-wise?

 

Is there any indication that Leica is not willing to deal with the issue under warranty with the upmost effort representative of their high standards?

 

The problem I, and I think others too, have, is not that one can't criticize Leica for a flaw that has slipped through quality control, it is the generalized condemnation of Leica's quality control based on the isolated case of a modest mistake slipping through. The point is simply that Leica's quality control does not "continually disappoint". Stating this is misplaced and I think it is relevant for people to comment on such a misplaced statement, it has nothing to do with apologetics or fanboyism. Like myself and others have pointed out, it is simply unrealistic to expect 100% of all lenses sold to be 100% perfect.

 

The fact that people are shocked by such a modest flaw is a clear indication of their general high performance.

[pop]

Consider:

 

Everyone and his uncle seems to own an M9 with one or more of the following:

- cracked sensor

- dead pixel rows

- halves of sensors with different brightness

- unability to use SDHC cards

- battery capacity issues

- dropped strap lugs

 

For each of these issues there are several threads with any number of members stating that they either have a camera which have the issue or that they know someone who has.

 

There must be an order of magnitude more Leica M lenses about than M9 cameras.

 

Yet, there appears to be one (1) thread which names two (2) people having seen a Leica lens with color application issues, one of who decided to keep the lens despite the defect.

 

What conclusions can be drawn:

- Either the number of lenses with this particular cosmetical defect is very small indeed as compared to the number of M9 cameras with critical defects,

- or the number of customers making an issue of this particular defect is very small

- or, of course, both.

 

Consider:

 

Someone mentioned the quality associated with aircraft maintenance.

 

Yet, every time I board a plane I see burnt-out reading bulbs over passenger seats, rattling baggage compartments and similar items, all of which actually subtract from the comfort of the flight. How many people throw a tantrum and leave the plane? None, so far.

 

Conclusions:

 

While a displaced blob of paint qualifies as defect, it does not contribute anything to the function of the camera or the lens. It does not appear to be a systematic problem with Leica gear. Accusing Leica's workers or the management of neclect is not called for. Sending the item back for repair is called for if the defect actually detracts from the joy of using the product.

[wattsy]

replaced by a Bentley. I think the new VolksRoyce is about the ugliest thing on the road...

 

I'm not going to argue about the aesthetics (though there are plenty of uglier vehicles on the road) but the current RR is made by BMW. Bentley is owned by VW.

[AlanG]

Yet, every time I board a plane I see burnt-out reading bulbs over passenger seats, rattling baggage compartments and similar items, all of which actually subtract from the comfort of the flight. How many people throw a tantrum and leave the plane? None, so far.

 

Do you think the plane left the factory that way?

[davidmhol]

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

 

I have one in my hand as I type. Not only is it cheaper than a body cap, it makes a damn fine paperweight.

There is no overflowing paint on mine either...............

[jaapv]

I'm not going to argue about the aesthetics (though there are plenty of uglier vehicles on the road) but the current RR is made by BMW. Bentley is owned by VW.

 

 

A little more complicated than that (Sorry, Wikipedia:()

 

After negotiations, BMW and Volkswagen Group arrived at a solution. From 1998 to 2002, BMW would continue to supply engines for the cars and would allow Volkswagen use of the Rolls-Royce name and logo. On 1 January 2003, only BMW would be able to name cars "Rolls-Royce", and Volkswagen Group's former Rolls-Royce/Bentley division would build only cars called "Bentley". The last Rolls Royce from the Crewe factory, the Corniche, ceased production in 2002, at which time the Crewe factory became Bentley Motorcars Limited , and Rolls-Royce production was relocated to Rolls Royce Motorcars in Goodwood, England.

 

Whoever owns it, Churchill is turning in his grave..

[pop]

Do you think the plane left the factory that way?

 

That'd be perfectly possible. However, the airplane theme was introduced earlier into this thread and applied to servicing as well as manufacturing:

 

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

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

One is a matter of priorities. The lens is fit for its stated purpose. It makes an optical image of satisfactory quality and handles in a way consistent with a precision instrument. A little excess color on its case will not influence its working. It also will not influence the subjects of the pictures to be taken in any way whatsoever. It is a cosmetic defect.

 

Some people are able to ignore cosmetic defects. Some will raise a hue and cry as if it was a cosmic defect. Some will just return it for correction or replacement. Such is life.

 

Another point in case is the opinion that once some defect is found in a product - however non-major it may be - that you can't be sure that there aren't quite a few more hidden defects present.

 

That way lies madness. If you think so, you can easily convince yourself that there must be hidden defects in the same product and, hence, in all products by that vendor. Be alarmed. Your front elements of your lenses will be shattered, the mechanisms become stuck and your camera will fall apart at your next outing. Or not.

 

Rather an extreme exaggeration of the situation I think. But it comes down to any consumer can judge the appearance of an item but unless one tests the item rigorously has to assume that the manufacturer's quality control has produced a product that is up to spec. A defect in the cosmetics can undermine faith in this whether you agree that this is true and rational or not.