Re: Leica quality

[ted grant <75501.3002@CompuServe.COM>]

Roger wrote:

<<<I don't either, and that's key here. Testing like goes on here is 
most likely to occur with equipment like Leica. When one pays a big buck 
for stuff like Leica, one tends to try to justify by testing.>>>>>>

Hi Roger,

Maybe I'm just lucky or something, but apart from the fiasco of the R4's I have
never had any glitch things with the Leica name.

I just figured for my work I need the fastest lens in a given category or the
longest, got it and started using it without the over and over testing that many
others go through.

Besides I never had time to fiddle around, as I have always been on assignment
some where or other without any thought of failure of gear and having extra
bodies to work with in the event it should happen.

But it sure has opened my eyes to some of the failures mentioned and I find it
extremely surprising the numbers of glitches reported. They do kind of tarnish
the name of Leica, if for no other reason the sheer numbers of complaints.

If something goes down with my gear it's because it has had a very hard user
life and or "dropped" (damn only once!) :) And if it hadn't landed on the
concrete it might still be banging away.

What I have found my self thinking lately is, that the next couple of lenses on
order I better check them out very throughly, but then I don't know what the
hell to look for in any event, so what the hell I might as well forget the
"testing" traffic and just start banging away.:)

The only thing I do with a new lens is shoot a couple of rolls from wide open to
smallest aperture and from the nearest point of focus and at infinity. But I do
this just to see what the visual effect is and not looking for anything
technical.

ted