Re: [Leica] Re: flawless Leica

["Joe Codispoti" <joecodi@thegrid.net>]

Sorry Jim,

I agree wit your first paragraph but not with subsequent ones. Human
weaknesses are inevitable but to justify them and accept them perpetuates
the problem.

Any manufactured item can fail, thus the warranty. But when an item that
costs twice and three times its competitor's is *delivered* defective, there
is no excuse.
Germany has survived the Japanese industrial onslaught by concentrating on
high quality, precision goods rather than compete in the same high
production direction taken by Japan. Yet, it seems that in some areas, they
are not as successful.

Germany is experiencing a labor malaise . It seems that the present working
force, unlike its Japanese counterpart, has no pride in workmanship. At
least not as it did two or three generations ago. This is not my opinion but
an established fact.
With the fall of the Berlin wall and the inevitable influx of a new and
unskilled refugee work force, it could be that it is increasingly difficult
to maintain a high level of pride-in-workmanship staff.

On the other hand, Japanese workers hold a certain fanaticism in producing
quality as though the product itself were their own private offspring. Also,
Japanese consumers are very fussy buyers. When we receive a new automobile,
we may check for scratches in the paint and insure that indeed we did get
the superchromemajig to better impress the Jones. Japanese buyer do not
accept a vehicle until they inspect everything thoroughly including the
undercarriage by crawling under the car.
The individual who bought the camera with the grinding lens aperture, should
have checked it at the dealer and rejected it on the spot rather than take
it home and be stuck with handling the replacement personally.

A camera such as Leica M - which I am sure is assembled by hand for the most
part - passes through hundreds of "quality control" stations. That is, each
assembler/worker has the opportunity to check his/her own work. Also,
knowing that the company is being pursued by a half dozen hungry
competitors, Leica should redouble its efforts to maintain an image of
superiority.

Bugatti was told by an influential potential customer: "Ah, wonderful car,
but to own the best one has to buy a Rolls". The following day Bugatti
ordered his engineers to redesign all components of the automobile with zero
tolerances.
Well I certainly hope that Leica will not follow Bugatti in history.

Joseph Codispoti




- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Brick" <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 9:00 AM
Subject: [Leica] Re: flawless Leica


> At 09:35 AM 4/24/00 -0400, Jim Shulman wrote:
> >Common sense also dictates that equipment at this price level SHOULD be
free
> >from defects, or close to virtually unmeasurable defect levels.  When you
> >purchase a $2000 or $3000 lens, or a $2000+ camera body, you're buying
both
> >craftsmanship as well as technology.  It's not unreasonable to demand
both
> >for your money.  These are Leicas, not Dianas.
> >
>
> Everybody seems to forget that these are electro-mechanical devices,
> designed and manufactured by human beings. Humans have the ugly trait of:
> not feeling well 100% of the time; having family problems (death, divorce,
> children involved in the wrong areas, etc.); being distracted, while
> working, by external stimuli; governed by "needing" the paycheck so going
> to work while any of the above is going on. But not conducive to producing
> "flawless" pieces of equipment.
>
> People think the Rolls Royce automobile should be perfect. Far from it!
> They have many many failures and even recalls.
>
> The checks and balances in a good manufacturing company will catch many,
> maybe most, flaws. But certainly their is room for error. And errors do
get
> through. It is absolutely impossible for anything, man made, to be always
> perfect.
>
> Remember the few hundred new M6's that were scratching film? Because the
> person who QC'ed the film pressure plates was not there (perhaps one of
the
> conditions listed above) and someone, obviously unskilled in film pressure
> plates, was filling in. When the QC person has a problem... lots of stuff
> gets through. Aaah, his manager should have made sure the proper person
was
> filling in. Perhaps the manager was also away. Off site meeting. Sick. A
> dozen other reasons. Who knows. Please pardon my language, but "shit
happens."
>
> Also remember that not all parts are manufactured at Leica by Leica. They
> are relying upon someone else to supply parts to Leica's specs. Leica does
> not even make their own production glass. Schott and Hoya are the main
> Leica glass suppliers. Even QC cannot always detect poor methods or
> materials from a supplier. Many times, detection is when the equipment
> fails in the field.
>
> For decades, Rolls Royce transmissions were the General Motors Hydromatic,
> directly from the GM US transmission plant. Did GM have a special RR
> assembly line? No. Did they use special RR parts? No. Were they good
> transmissions? Yes. Did they ever fail? Of course. But this is a Rolls
> Royce. It is supposed to be perfect. BS!
>
> Remember Apollo 13? Remember the Space Shuttle Challenger? We are talking
> human lives here. Not just if a camera will take a picture. All of the
> money and QC in the world will not produce flawless products. Period!
>
> So don't place you Leica on a pedestal. It will have as many failures as
> any other human designed and manufactured device. Just know that it is the
> best at resolving fine images on to 35mm film. If it breaks, get it fixed.
>
> Above all, carry it with you and take lots of pictures.
>
> Jim
>
> PS... As a point of reference, my Hasselblad 203FE body (only the body, no
> lens, no film back) was over $5000. $8000 with a normal lens and a film
> back. Do I expect it to be flawlessly perfect just because it is so
> expensive? No. To do so would be really dumb. I do hope it is a Tuesday
> through Thursday camera, but only time will tell.
>
> None of my R cameras have ever failed. Starting in 1976 through now, two
> R3's, two R4sP's, one R6, three R7's. But I have had to adjust the
vertical
> RF alignment in both of my M6's. It's just the nature of the beasts. I
> accept it.
>
> And due to its simplicity, I would expect a Diana or Holga to have fewer
> problems than a very complex Leica.
>
> Jim again
>