Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Charlie wrote: >So, I've taken delivery of 6 examples of new equipment from Leica and >only two of those (one 50/2 and one of three 90/2.8) have been in >acceptable condition.I examined this equipment as carefully as I do >my M equipment. Out of 7 examples of new equipment from Nikon, 6 were >in first-class condition. That's a failure rate that is much more >acceptable. afterwards Marc wrote: >Far, far better Kiev than Canon or Nikon or some other computerized, >assembly-line whiz-bang company. does it mean computerized assembly lines seem to make less mistakes? Just to extend on it, my personal life-long experience with quality: Voigtlaender: Bessamatic - no problems 135/4 - no problems 50/2 - no problems Olympus: OM-1 - no problems OM-2 - no problems 50/1..8 - no problems 55/1.2 - no problems 28/2.8 - no problems Leica: R3mot (secondhand) - winder synchronization problem R4 (secondhand) - shutter failed (several times) 50/2 (secondhand) - getting fogged 35/4 (secondhand) - aperture ring loose 24/2.8 (secondhand)- no problems M3 (secondhand) - shutter failure Nikon: F5 - no problem 50/1.8AF - no problem 35/2.0AF (secondhand) - aperture frozen 20/2.8 (secondhand) - lens element went loose all items bought secondhand developed problems (not aperant or forseeable when bought). It didn't surprised me. Except for the R4 which after being fixed by Leica should have worked flawless (but failed repeatedly and was one of the reasons to turn to N) Christian