Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/02/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Frank Filippone jotted down the following: > One of the interesting items that came from my study of the serial numbers > of the M6HM was that as a group, the LUG represents about 3% of all Leica > purchasers. ( about 75-100 cameras were reported in about the first 6 > months against a total production of 3000-odd). This gives us a good > statistical basis to determine trends. Good statistical basis? From a self-selected sample? Yeah, right. > If we are seeing a "return rate" of even 1% on our LUG equipment, then we > have been failed by the manufacturer. Can you imagine your reaction to > getting a new car whose engine does not function? How about a new > refrigerator that keeps food at a nice warm 54 degrees F? A new house whose > hot and cold taps are randomly different ( left and right ) throughout the > house? So, I suppose that the equivalent problems with Leica cameras would be ones that don't work out of the box, that consistenly overexpose by two stops, or that thas the lens flange mounted on the back door. Come on, these are not the problems people have been experiencing (except the first in one or two instances). Look, people, can we please get real? Instead of navel gazing and letting tempers run rampant, would someone PLEASE COLLECT SOME DAMN REAL WORLD DATA about the state of things? One person gets a lens with two dust specks in it, and before you can say 100mm f/2.8 APO-Macro-Elmarit-R, Leica is producing products whose quality is inferior to Kiev SLRs. At the moment, all I see is opinionated arguing without any empirical basis. That doesn't get us, nor Leica, nowhere. M. - -- Martin Howard | "I am Pentium of Borg. Division is Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU | futile. You will be approximated." email: howard.390@osu.edu | -- Unknown www: http://mvhoward.i.am/ +---------------------------------------