Re: [Leica] QA/QC

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

From: Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 19, 1999 00:55
Subject: Re: [Leica] QA/QC


> To the best of my recollection, this is the first report
> of a possibly defective M6 meter posted to the LUG since
> I have been a subscriber (almost 3 years).

Whoa... just a minute!  I haven't reported a defective meter.  In fact, I
haven't even postulated a defective meter--it never occurred to me that a camera
with the reputation of Leica could leave the factory with a defective meter.
Godfrey _suggested_ that I check the meter as part of an overall process of
elimination, which _implied_ that it was possible for a Leica M6 meter to be
defective--however, thus far, no actual defect has been reported... so the
record still holds.

In fact, in testing the meter in my M6 against my other cameras and the Minolta
Spotmeter that I just got, it appears to be 100% accurate.  Additionally, there
are no other defects of any kind in the camera--not even any "fit and finish"
aesthetic issues (paint irregularities or other completely trivial things).  As
far as I can tell up to this point, this camera was perfect out of the box, as
was the lens.

> I think the first thing you must do is determine that
> the problem you are experiencing is indeed due to a
> defective meter.

My current evidence suggests that the problem is due to my defective
photographic technique.  The camera is absolutely not at fault here, which I
find very reassuring.  I can correct defects in my technique, but I would not be
able to correct defects in the camera.

  -- Anthony