Re: [Leica] Consistent underexposure problem

["Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>]

From: Martin Howard <mvh@media.mit.edu>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 1999 02:51
Subject: Re: [Leica] Consistent underexposure problem


> It will never cease to suprise me the number of people who
> think that spending a lot of money automatically entitles
> them to be arrogant.

There is nothing arrogant about expecting to get what one pays for.

What do you think Leica sells?  Bells and whistles?  Nope--their cameras have
not materially changed in decades.  The Leica name?  Maybe, just barely, but
hardly anyone who isn't into Photography has any idea what Leica is, and the
little red circle is meaningless to anyone outside photography circles
(virtually none of my friends or relatives would be impressed to hear that I
have a Leica, even if I broadcast the fact to them all).  So, what's left?
Well, quality, that's what.  Leica sells quality.  Almost all of the money you
spend on a Leica pays for _uncompromising_ quality.  That means no defects, no
bugs, no dings, no scratches in the paint, no "loose tolerances," nothing.
There is nothing at all arrogant about expecting quality when quality is what
the company sells.  And, at this level of nominal quality, _no_ defect in a new
camera is acceptable, period.

Now, I could go out and spend equal amounts of money on Canon equipment, but we
all know that Canon doesn't sell quality alone, so it would be harder to
complain about a manufacturing defect.  Canon _does_ sell bells and whistles,
and the name, and the look.  But Leica sells only the quality.

(Nikon is kind of in the middle, although a lot closer to Leica than it is to
Canon.  That's why all my SLR equipment is Nikon, and not Canon.)

> The world we live in is not deterministic.  It is *impossible*
> to cover for every single eventuality or circumstance, regardless
> of how much money you throw at it.  As an engineer, you should
> know that.

As an engineer, I know that this theoretical absolute is routinely cited by
engineers when they cannot or will not provide a certain level of quality in the
products they produce; it's essentially a cop-out.  They cite the impossibility
of perfection as an excuse for _correctible_ imperfection.  Most defects and
design errors are the result of stupidity, laziness, or greed; they are not
consequences of immutable physical laws.  Indeed, I cannot remember ever coming
across a defect that clearly was a consequence of any "law of nature."

> If it was possible, there wouldn't be guarantees, Passport or
> otherwise.  There would be no need for them.

Actually, I don't pay much attention to warranties and the like.  If a product
fails often enough that I need to care about the warranty service, I just won't
buy it in the first place.  Better a product that has no warranty but never
fails than a product with a fabulous warranty that spends all its time in the
shop.

> If you think $3000 entitles you circumvent the laws of nature ...

The laws of nature have nothing to do with the matters under discussion here.

> ... consider how much Leica has spent on development of production
> and quality control routines aimed at the lowest possible failure
> rate.

No need to consider it; the camera I bought provides evidence of it.

Thus far, the defect and failure rates are zero in this camera.  Hmm... I
thought that circumvented the laws of nature, no?

> To suggest that Leica `routinely defrauds its customers' based
> on this one, single experience is so boneheaded that there is
> only one suitable response:
>
> Open mouth; Insert foot.

I agree.  And now that you've said that, you might want to go back and read my
posts again.  You'll note that I never said that Leica defrauds anyone.  And
that I never said that there was any problem with my camera at all; in fact, I
never even postulated it.  I leave the conclusions to be derived therefrom as an
exercise for the reader.

  -- Anthony