[Leica] quality control at Leica and quality info on the Lug

[Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

On QC, Marc among others wrote, very reasonable:
>What I am trying to say is three things:
>
>- -- Bitching to the LUG doesn't do a thing, and only adds a layer of stress
>and tension to a list which already is stressed and tense enough.>>>>
>
>- -- Happy folks don't complain, and, hence, don't make it into the
>statistical sample group.
>
- -> -- The LUG, in any event, is just too small a sample from which to derive
>any concrete conclusions.

Let me add and corroborate:
Leica does not monitor this list, indeed too much junk ( we are ALL
responsible for this junk are we not?) and indeed too small a sample to be
significant. So let us be realistic: the Lug is a loosely coupled group of
users of Leica equipment, whose experience runs from heavy duty (a very
few) to casual (most).

The quality of Leica equipment is now higher than in the past, tolerances
are tighter now than in the past. But Leica now is a small company with
small production runs and they rely for a large part on  subcontractors for
many components that have to be made in small quantities. Not every
manufacturer is willing to tool machinery for a small quantity and Leica
therefor has to be very selective: small producion runs and excellent
quality for a reasonable price is difficult to find. The pressure plate
problem is a case: indeed one person in the factory that produces the
plates fell ill and had to be replaced for a while by  another person who
apparently was not as skilled.
Failures of this kind are unavoidable. They are a nuisance and should be
eliminated as soon as possible. Leica does this: repair or replacement is
done in a fair way. Of course we might expect the impossible from the
company. Leica charges premium prices and we as customers are entitled to
very high quality products. This expectance is reasonable and justified. If
in 5 years of production (about 60 thousand M bodies) one small batch of
perhaps 100  has a faulty pressure plate, what does that signify? Lower
quality or bad QC? Not at all. To get to logical conclusions we must start
with correct premisses.

There are no bean counters in the company: just serious analysts who look
critically at every production stage to look for quality improvements and
any cost cutting that is feasible.
The restructuring that got noticed in the press is old news for Leica
insiders. The company is now headed by two directors and has a new layer of
management of ten persons who are in charge of ten large, clearly
structured  departments that are streamlined from scores of historically
grown almost feudal structures. Some heads will roll (or have been rolled).
Again do not read too much in scant information and try to stop producing
information noise.

Leica products are checked on a great many aspects and in many stages of
the production. That does not imply that every part is individually
checked. Alignment of the bayonet mount to the film guides is very
important as is the curve of the rangefinder cam as is the accuracy of the
exposure meter. All these parts are checked. But a spring for the tension
of the shutter is not. So that might fail some time. QC wrong? Bean
counters? Please be reasonable.

The grinding of lens surfaces to 1/10000 mm is not new nor a significant
item. Many glass companies can do this. CNC on the other hand is very
significant if combined with info about lens design and production
technology. Leica lens mounts nowadays are better than in the past (better
material,  better machined to tighter tolerances. Lens mounts now weight
less than in the past. Does that mean a lowering of quality? No there is
less material in a lens mount. Why?  In the past every single lens or lens
group was set in its own subassembly. And these were put together in the
final outer casting. Looks pretty good. Any many will infer that this is a
token of high quality. It is not. The reason to have these subassemblies is
simple: to adjust the decentring of the individual lens elements during
assembly.  Lens elements could not be produced with sufficient accuracy to
put them directly in one mount. Now this is possible with better
technology. Advantages: less material, less labour. Again: bean counters?
No just  an improvement made possible by better technology and production
methods.

One person came on the list and very quickly went away as he noticed that
there was much noise here.  The active persons on this list are a minority
of all persons who subscribe. I assume that this silent majority stays on
to get valuable info about the Leica products and the use of Leica
products. As this list is public any one can post whatever he likes. On the
other hand because of its public nature I would also assume that the active
posters will feel the responsibility of making their thoughts and ideas
public. Sharing your info is very important. But as every writer/journalist
knows: be careful in what you say and think twice,  research double before
going public. By inference any poster on this list should be that
responsible.


Erwin