Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/04/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Snip: So now I don't understand why there are so many R8 problems, M6 pressure plate, shutter, RF alignment problems, and lenses with loose elements??? So is this all happening "after" they leave Solms? Very interesting! The next logical question is whether the "bean counters" have had manufacturing go through the camera and lenses and reduce quality on each and every part as low as possible (thus saving manufacturing costs and increasing profits) without catching the attention of too many potential customers? The prime example is the M-6 pressure plate problem that a number of Leica owners have reported. The pressure plate in my M-6 is so poorly finished that the difference between the surface finish on it and the surface finish on the M-3 pressure plates is apparent to the eye. It is doubtful the "new" pressure plate just skipped by quality control but was purposely manufactured to lower standards with the hope it "would do." The next logical question is how many other CRITICAL parts have the "bean counters" cheapened down with the hope the customer will not notice? It has been this writer's experience the old M cameras were so well engineered and their parts manufactured to such high standards, the problems now being reported just did not occur. The next logical question is whether anyone has compared the earlier manufacturing tolerances with the present day tolerances? Any manufacturing facility that produces a product maintains a book of manufacturing tolerances that will enable the facility to refer to those tolerances as often as necessary to maintain the quality of its product. Unless Leica Germany has burned the earlier books, it should be an easy thing to check manufacturing tolerances over the years. Another myth is that the installation and use of CNC equipment results in superior parts. Merely because a plant has installed CNC (Computer Numerical Control) equipment does not necessarily mean part tolerances are being held to tighter standards than those standards of years ago. Depending upon the quality of the CNC equipment, the potential for better work off the machine is possible but not guaranteed. Especially is this true if the manufacturer is not trying to equal or surpass yesterday's tolerance but only wishes to increase the speed of production. It would be interesting reading, indeed, if Leica Germany would publish tolerances from the 60's and present day so they might be compared. The writer also noted concern with loose lens elements. Could it be that Leica has reduced lens body costs through the substitution of numerous small screws to hold the lens together versus the old method of locking the pieces together with heavy duty lock rings? From current tests, the Leica glass does appear to be superior but from reports that are appearing on the LUG, the lens mounts are not as robust and reliable as in past years. At one time there were very knowledgeable Leica users who had followed Leica so closely they could provide answers to the quality questions now being raised by numerous Leica users. Perhaps they could enlighten us.