Leica Cost Cutting

[Stephen Gandy <cameras@jetlink.net>]

Charles E. Love, Jr. wrote:
> 
> snip
> Also, there are lots of cheaper lenses (non-Leica) that have decent hoods.
> For example, I have Pentax 67 lenses, and the hoods are much easier to use
> and better built than the Leica M 21 and 28 hoods; some are even metal!
> Leica itself has built some pretty good ones too--e.g. the old R 19 2.8, and
> the current Summicron 35 F2.  My objection isn't to the plastic, but to the
> low quality, deformation,

This is a VERY  important point which is generally by passed over  by 
new buyers gushing over the Leica "glow" and "mystique".  For the price,
new buyers have a right to expect better construction quality than Leica
is delivering.

Leica has made a point to cut production costs and therefore quality of
construction every way it thought it could get away with it and still
maintain astronomically high prices.  Examples
	1) switching from metal to plastic 21 and 28 finders
	2) hoods poorly executed
	3) switching from engravings to stampings.  The most notorious case is
the lack of an engraving on the M6 top.  The lenses suffer too.  Take a
look at the 50/2.8 collapsible which has gotten such good reviews in
this list recently.  Leica is too cheap to engrave the lens information
around the filter ring and uses a stamping instead.  Vivitar engraved
even the CHEAPEST of its $50 lenses during the 70's,  but now Leica
considers engraving  too expensive for its $800 lens in the 90's.

A lot of this cheapening has to do with public acceptance.  If we banded
together and bombarded Solms with complaints, we would probably see them
respond to public pressure as they have done in the past.

Stephen Gandy