Jump to content
KdB

So Leica makes cameras for pros... Really?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, jaapv said:

He has a right to be pissed off. However, not to bash. As for the sensor issue, I don't think it is fair to blame Leica as such. The cracks were obviously a manufacturing issue in a series of sensors, not by Leica - although, as assembler, they are liable for the product, but by Kodak etc., the corrosion issue in the end as well. There is a difference between liability and culpability.

Not really.

There is a difference between responsibility and culpability/liability, and that is the point I think you were trying to make.  However, as Leica produces the specification for what it requires, takes that to specialist component manufacturers, contracts for those components to be made to spec, it does have a responsibility to do more than just rely on an ISO certificate or contractual assurance that the components comply with specification and are fit for purpose.  That is part of its quality assurance obligations.

As between Leica and its customers, absolutely it is responsible, culpable and liable for the failures of the component parts in its products.  That is its responsibility, even though it may not have directly caused the fault, they remain legally culpable and liable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Not really.

There is a difference between responsibility and culpability/liability, and that is the point I think you were trying to make.  However, as Leica produces the specification for what it requires, takes that to specialist component manufacturers, contracts for those components to be made to spec, it does have a responsibility to do more than just rely on an ISO certificate or contractual assurance that the components comply with specification and are fit for purpose.  That is part of its quality assurance obligations.

As between Leica and its customers, absolutely it is responsible, culpable and liable for the failures of the component parts in its products.  That is its responsibility, even though it may not have directly caused the fault, they remain legally culpable and liable.

I totally agree.

Thank you for making that difference between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, IkarusJohn said:

Not really.

There is a difference between responsibility and culpability/liability, and that is the point I think you were trying to make.  However, as Leica produces the specification for what it requires, takes that to specialist component manufacturers, contracts for those components to be made to spec, it does have a responsibility to do more than just rely on an ISO certificate or contractual assurance that the components comply with specification and are fit for purpose.  That is part of its quality assurance obligations.

As between Leica and its customers, absolutely it is responsible, culpable and liable for the failures of the component parts in its products.  That is its responsibility, even though it may not have directly caused the fault, they remain legally culpable and liable.

That is correct. The customer's contract is effectively with Leica or its agents, a lot of whom are now owned or controlled by Leica. Even where there is an independent retailer and an implied contract with that retailer, the liability chain will always end with Leica. Leica is a wonderful company in many ways, but its displayed sense of duty and care to its customers is often not commensurate with the very high prices which it charges for its products. Looking at this from only just a selfish viewpoint, this is something which will have to improve if the company is to survive in what is an increasingly difficult marketplace.

I am speaking here as someone who was head of consumer protection in my country for over 8 years.

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Not really.

There is a difference between responsibility and culpability/liability, and that is the point I think you were trying to make.  However, as Leica produces the specification for what it requires, takes that to specialist component manufacturers, contracts for those components to be made to spec, it does have a responsibility to do more than just rely on an ISO certificate or contractual assurance that the components comply with specification and are fit for purpose.  That is part of its quality assurance obligations.

As between Leica and its customers, absolutely it is responsible, culpable and liable for the failures of the component parts in its products.  That is its responsibility, even though it may not have directly caused the fault, they remain legally culpable and liable.

I think you made the legal point eloquently, John  (which comes as no surprise.) However, realistically, in a complex tool like a digital camera 📷 it is impossible for an end assembler to do full quality control on all components. They would  simply lack the infrastructure and expertise. There is a point that they have to rely on the supplier. The smaller the company, the closer that point. Obviously the onus remains to make good should one of the suppliers fail to deliver. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, KdB said:

Hello James.

I'm not here to argue or be harsh with anyone.

You have your own understanding and interpretation of my post, I'm fine with that.

It's a matter of client relationship and how to differentiate. Everyone is free to spend his money to one's liking, right?

If the client feels more comfortable having a Leica on location, rather than a Fuji and if he's willing to pay, why should I bring a Fuji or a Sony?

Then, it's normal and legit to have a flawless and reliable equipment.

Cheers.

Indeed you're free to choose whatever brand of tool for your job that you wish. But when you say you get just a good results with your Nokia phone, why spend more?! 

Do your clients really want to know that you use a Leica instead of a Fuji or any other brand cameras? That would seem rather odd or demanding (problem client!). When I go for a meal I don't ask what type of pans the chef is using, or when I go for a haircut I don't demand brand X scissors. I trust the people I deal with to make the appropriate decisions about the equipment they use (although if I hired you and you turned up with a Nokia phone I might have some doubts........). 

Whilst your experience does seem poor, equipment failure needs to be factored in to your business plan as a working photographer. You need spare bodies/lenses and yes, decent back up service from the manufacturers. 

You handicapped yourself a little by choosing Leica, as you must have known that they don't have the same kind of back up that Canon or Nikon offer, nor are there the availability of Leica hire outlets if you need gear at short notice. 

As you say, you're free to make your choice to your own liking but you must take some of the blame for your predicament as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as I mentioned, Leica does offer better service to registered  pros, and express service to all. If, like in this case it seems, a delay in obtaining spares causes a long wait, Leica will often provide a loaner, not only to professionals, but also to - in my experience- to amateurs who will be severely disadvantaged like just before a major holiday, when doing a project, etc.The only thing I can advise: talk to the folks in Wetzlar.

I get the impression that the OP neglected to register as a professional with Leica in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

I think you made the legal point eloquently, John  (which comes as no surprise.) However, realistically, in a complex tool like a digital camera 📷 it is impossible for an end assembler to do full quality control on all components. They would  simply lack the infrastructure and expertise. There is a point that they have to rely on the supplier. The smaller the company, the closer that point. Obviously the onus remains to make good should one of the suppliers fail to deliver. 

And there, consumer protection laws and I disagree with you.  Of course, you take an extreme view (reductio ad absurdem) by saying “impossible” and “full” qc on “all” components.  Earlier, you were giving them a free pass.  As the end seller, Leica is responsible for all the components - that includes specification, manufacture installation and ... testing.  See what I did there?  I put it in bold!  Just for you.

So there’s no misunderstanding, if the camera is faulty, it’s Leica”s fault, responsibility, liability and culpability. They may themselves have recourse to a supplier, but that is not the customers’ concern. No ifs, no buts, no maybes ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not denying any reponsibility of the maker for product faults. I am just pointing out the impossiblity of doing all quality control checks by the end assembler itself. Their vresponsibility is applying their quality standards to all parts suppliers. You are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying.

Quote

Obviously the onus remains to make good should one of the suppliers fail to deliver. 

It helps to read a post beyond the first sentence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now now, don’t start taking things out of context.

I’m totally disagreeing with your underlying point that Leica missing faulty components is somehow okay.  Or did I misunderstand what you meant when you said there’s a difference between culpability and liability?  What did you mean, by the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 1 Stunde schrieb jaapv:

I am not denying any reponsibility of the maker for product faults. I am just pointing out the impossiblity of doing all quality control checks by the end assembler itself. Their vresponsibility is applying their quality standards to all parts suppliers. You are saying exactly the same thing that I am saying.

It helps to read a post beyond the first sentence...

you must be joking. when i buy a bentley, i dont care who delivers the pistons for the motor. when they brake, i go to bentley, since they have sold me the car

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of  course -that is what I am saying. 😕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IkarusJohn said:

Now now, don’t start taking things out of context.

I’m totally disagreeing with your underlying point that Leica missing faulty components is somehow okay.  Or did I misunderstand what you meant when you said there’s a difference between culpability and liability?  What did you mean, by the way?

 

Now where did I say that?   You can't be serious here. Sorry, Legalese must differ from plain English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jaapv said:

And as I mentioned, Leica does offer better service to registered  pros, and express service to all. If, like in this case it seems, a delay in obtaining spares causes a long wait, Leica will often provide a loaner, not only to professionals, but also to - in my experience- to amateurs

Jaap, I think your experience is in Europe.  In the Leica NY customer support is poor.  It's like having an unwilling intermediary between the owner and the mother ship in Wetzlar.  Where does one get a loaner in the US?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two questions please...

 

Do ‘ professionals ‘ pay more for their Leica/s to get the service alluded to in this thread?

Where can I get a loaner Leica camera in the GCC ( mid-east )?

Thank you kindly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, zeitz said:

Jaap, I think your experience is in Europe.  In the Leica NY customer support is poor.  It's like having an unwilling intermediary between the owner and the mother ship in Wetzlar.  Where does one get a loaner in the US?

 

34 minutes ago, fursan said:

Two questions please...

 

Do ‘ professionals ‘ pay more for their Leica/s to get the service alluded to in this thread?

Where can I get a loaner Leica camera in the GCC ( mid-east )?

Thank you kindly.

No idea - I can only speak from my experience with Customer Service Wetzlar. The OP is in France. AFAIK the services I mentioned are offered by the Customer Service in Wetzlar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jaapv said:

 

I get the impression that the OP neglected to register as a professional with Leica in the first place.

Blaming the customer is always wrong, both objectively and subjectively.

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jaapv said:

And as I mentioned, Leica does offer better service to registered  pros, and express service to all. If, like in this case it seems, a delay in obtaining spares causes a long wait, Leica will often provide a loaner, not only to professionals, but also to - in my experience- to amateurs who will be severely disadvantaged like just before a major holiday, when doing a project, etc.The only thing I can advise: talk to the folks in Wetzlar.

I get the impression that the OP neglected to register as a professional with Leica in the first place.

All my Leica cameras have been registred through the years.

I am not trying to make Leica a bad reputation here. I am a photographer who has invested lots of money in a brand, in its systems because I thought they would be reliable tools (as marketed) but it hurts to realize I was wrong. Worst than that, they are less reliable than the other brands (I have owned Sony, Canon, Nikon, Ricoh and Fuji cameras). 

These are FACTS, only facts. They NEVER gave me a loaner, never.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you ask?

 

I was not talking about registering your cameras - nearly everybody does - but about registering yourself as a professional photographer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/15/2019 at 9:34 PM, jaapv said:

He has a right to be pissed off. However, not to bash. As for the sensor issue, I don't think it is fair to blame Leica as such. The cracks were obviously a manufacturing issue in a series of sensors, not by Leica - although, as assembler, they are liable for the product, but by Kodak etc., the corrosion issue in the end as well. There is a difference between liability and culpability.

 

6 hours ago, IkarusJohn said:

Now now, don’t start taking things out of context.

I’m totally disagreeing with your underlying point that Leica missing faulty components is somehow okay.  Or did I misunderstand what you meant when you said there’s a difference between culpability and liability?  What did you mean, by the way?

 

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

 

Now where did I say that?   You can't be serious here. Sorry, Legalese must differ from plain English.

Oh, but I am serious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reasons, the title of the topic has been edited to be softer with Leica. 

Is it on request of Leica or is it censorship? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy