Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/03/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
You are right, of course - not a representative sample at all - but I do not think these results as worthless. Actually a lot of things point the same way. And I do not have any personal experience of R4 or R3.
All the best!
Raimo
photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen
- -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: christian becker <8fps@gmx.de>
Vastaanottaja: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Päivä: 01. maaliskuuta 2000 12:34
Aihe: [Leica] Re:R3/R4 reliability - statistics
>Raimo wrote:
>>German magazine Color Foto did a survey among the readership 9/89 and
>>really found out that there were indeed problems with (early) R4 cameras
>>(not R4s). R4 is described as "Sorgenkind" - the child of sorrow - of the
>
>>Leica cameras. {...} And yes - the M6 itself "ist kein Musterknabe" or
>>model boy - but no details here, either.
>>BTW the best was Nikon with 15.6% defects (FM/FM2 only 6.7%), then
>Yashica >(yes, really) 16.6%, Ricoh (yes, really) 17.1%, Canon 19.6%, Leica - as
>>stated - 24.3%, Pentax 25.9%, Minolta 26% and Contax 30.3%....
>
>
>Raimo,
>
>The survey IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE and just shows that the given percentage
>of R3/R4 owners who had trouble or were unsatisfied wrote to the magazine.
>That's all. Malfunctions/problems were not specified, noone had to prove
>anything.
>Prices on the used market reflect a lot of facts but they do not reflect
>reliability.
>
>Still there is only one reliable source of information on the issue -
>Wetzlar/Solms. But they won't tell you, won't they?
>
>
>
>--
>click before it is too late
>
>Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
>