Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1996/11/07[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
At 07:54 AM 11/7/96 -0800, Stephen Gandy wrote: >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. Well, in defense of Leica, there were beau coup complaints about the old metal 21 & 28 finders slipping out of the accessory shoe, so the plastic one was developed to counter this. The optics ARE the same. The newer hoods WERE junk, which is probably why Leica went over to the inbuilt (slip) hoods on the current-production lenses. I FAXed a note to Solms when I owned my last new 2/50 and, of course, heard nothing back from them, not even the courtesy of a 'thanks for the input'. The engraving/stamping controversy doesn't do a lot for me either way. Engraving costs a lot of money, stamping doesn't, so I'm in favour of keeping costs down so long as mechanical and optical quality stay high. Marc email@example.com FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!