[Leica] Reply to Mr Gandy

[Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

- --============_-1271868253==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"


Dear Mr. Gandy,
Here is a repost of my mail from 1997:
>I'll concede that there is a popular myth setting out that the 
>M2/3/4 are better built than
>are the M4-2/M4-P/M6.
But this simply isn't true.
The M6 is even better built than the M2/3/4. First of all the 
machinery at the plant is more accurate than in earlier days. Than 
the quality control is more sophisticated and uses tighter 
tolerances. Then the choice of materials and the finish is of higher 
quality.
There is only one problem with the M6. In the old days Leitz built 
every part even the most minute screw themselves. Now some parts must 
be bought from outside sources. There lurks a problem. If the outside 
source stops delivering the parts, you must look for an alternative. 
Thats the reason that some Leica products are sometimes in backorder. 
And to be honest, some of these parts are of lower quality. But Leica 
stresses the fact that all vital parts are up to the highest quality 
standards.
Marc is right in drawing attention to the switch from the all 
adjustable instrument to the part assembled intrument. The reason is 
of course lowering of production cost. And as I mentioned the older 
quality control and production process could not guarantee that the 
camera would stay within the specified tolerances for a long time. 
Then the adjustments are a necessary consequence of the production 
process and not of some design philosophy.

As you see, I am not and was not blind to reduction of production 
costs and the use of cheaper components.  I underlined the relevant 
sentences. I  assume you did not read my current  post carefully. You 
write:
>Perhaps you don't notice the complaints from time to time in the LUG 
>about ghosting in the RF image.
I stated in that same post that there several problems, among them 
"the flare in the viewfinder".
I did not debate in my post the status of the M6 or whether there is 
cost reduction and cheaper parts inside the M6.  See above, I am 
aware of that and posted it on the Lug several years ago.
The question I asked in my current post was simply to define and 
substantiate the claim that the M4 is the last Leica model build to 
the cost-is-of-no-relevance-production-model. And I asked the in my 
view legitimate question whether cost reduction in itself is bad. 
Then I asked whether you are anybody else who claims the superiority 
of M4 mechanics and construction to give " solid engineering 
arguments that the M4 is better built or is built with a "cost is 
irrelevant"- perspective". Again I did not say that the M6 is not 
subject to cost reduction measures. I just asked for a definition of 
"cost-is-irrelevant" approach backed up with facts how to measure 
this.  If you make claims you should be able to underwrite them with 
facts and not only a reference to countless repairpersons.
You state among other things that
"the adhesive backed body covering of the M6 costs less than the 
vulcanite of the M4" and that
" the black chrome is a cheaper process than black enamel of the M4."
I am entitled to ask you to give me the cost figures of the M6 body 
covering process versus the vulcanite process and process details of 
that allegedly "cheaper process".
I am aware that these differences exist, but I simply ask you to 
provide facts to support your statements and  to substantiate any 
definite claims about the design and construction of several Leica 
models. And as a corollary I am entitled to ask you to give me 
statistics that the M6 body covering is less durable than the 
vulcanite cover. Or that the black chrome is less durable than the 
black enamel.

I will not comment on your remarks concerning my  "objectivity, 
accuracy, ability and understanding", as it should be Lug practice to 
make ad hominem remarks off-line.

Erwin



- --============_-1271868253==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"



Dear Mr. Gandy,

Here is a repost of my mail from 1997:

<fontfamily><param>Geneva</param><smaller>>I'll concede that there is a
popular myth setting out that the M2/3/4 are better built than

>are the M4-2/M4-P/M6.  

But this simply isn't true.

The M6 is even better built than the M2/3/4. First of all the machinery
at the plant is more accurate than in earlier days. Than the quality
control is more sophisticated and uses tighter tolerances. Then the
choice of materials and the finish is of higher quality. 

There is only one problem with the M6. In the old days Leitz built
every part even the most minute screw themselves. Now some parts must
be bought from outside sources. There lurks a problem. If the outside
source stops delivering the parts, you must look for an alternative.
Thats the reason that some Leica products are sometimes in
backorder.<underline> And to be honest, some of these parts are of
lower quality</underline>. But Leica stresses the fact that all vital
parts are up to the highest quality standards. 

Marc is right in drawing attention to the switch from the all
adjustable instrument to the part assembled intrument.<underline> The
reason is of course lowering of production cos</underline>t. And as I
mentioned the older quality control and production process could not
guarantee that the camera would stay within the specified tolerances
for a long time. Then the adjustments are a necessary consequence of
the production process and not of some design philosophy.


</smaller></fontfamily>As you see, I am not and was not blind to
reduction of production costs and the use of cheaper components.  I
underlined the relevant sentences. I  assume you did not read my
current  post carefully. You write:

>Perhaps you don't notice the complaints from time to time in the LUG
about ghosting in the RF image. 

I stated in that same post that there several problems, among them "the
flare in the viewfinder". 

I did not debate in my post the status of the M6 or whether there is
cost reduction and cheaper parts inside the M6.  See above, I am aware
of that and posted it on the Lug several years ago. 

The question I asked in my current post was simply to define and
substantiate the claim that the M4 is the last Leica model build to the
cost-is-of-no-relevance-production-model. And I asked the in my view
legitimate question whether cost reduction in itself is bad.  Then I
asked whether you are anybody else who claims the superiority of M4
mechanics and construction to give " solid engineering arguments that
the M4 is better built or is built with a "cost is irrelevant"-
perspective". Again I did not say that the M6 is not subject to cost
reduction measures. I just asked for a definition of
"cost-is-irrelevant" approach backed up with facts how to measure this.
 If you make claims you should be able to underwrite them with facts
and not only a reference to countless repairpersons. 

You state among other things that

"the adhesive backed body covering of the M6 costs less than the
vulcanite of the M4" and that 

" the black chrome is a cheaper process than black enamel of the M4." 

I am entitled to ask you to give me the cost figures of the M6 body
covering process versus the vulcanite process and process details of
that allegedly "cheaper process".

I am aware that these differences exist, but I simply ask you to
provide facts to support your statements and  to substantiate any
definite claims about the design and construction of several Leica
models. And as a corollary I am entitled to ask you to give me
statistics that the M6 body covering is less durable than the vulcanite
cover. Or that the black chrome is less durable than the black enamel.


I will not comment on your remarks concerning my  "objectivity,
accuracy, ability and understanding", as it should be Lug practice to
make ad hominem remarks off-line. 


Erwin


- --============_-1271868253==_ma============--