[Leica] "They don't make 'em like they used to..."

[Jim Laurel <jplaurel@microsoft.com>]

After watching this thread for a while, I feel compelled to comment as
well...

We see this same "they don't make 'em like they used to" mentality on the
Land Rover list as well.  Owners of the old "Series" Land Rovers believe the
old vehicles are tougher, more maintainable, longer lasting, etc.  While it
may be true that the old designs are more field-maintainable, the newer
vehicles are much, much more reliable.  Feedback from expeditions over the
years has brought many design enhancements, and today's product is simply
better than ever.  It's just as Erwin describes with Leica of yesterday.
Any quality control that Land Rover had in the old days was the result of
lots of manual labor and, no doubt, judicious use of mallets.

At the national rallye in New Mexico last year, the newer fuel-injected,
computer controlled Land Rovers proved themselves at high altitudes,
climbing steep hills.

When I bought my 1997 E420, an old timer at the Mercedes dealer told me all
about how these new cars are not built as well as the old ones, and that
cheaper components are used, etc.  Sound familiar?  True, the new car is not
as adjustable as my Dad's older models, and when something goes out of
whack, it's usually fixed by a replacement.

But you know what?  In 15k miles, I have yet to see the dealer over any
failures.  The car drives better, handles better, is safer and, as far as
I'm concerned is more reliable than the old cars.

Leica, like Mercedes and Land Rover, has to face the reality of the current
world economy -- a reality where laborious manual labor is not only
expensive, but not nearly as consistent or precise as computers and robots.

- --Jim Laurel

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Erwin Puts [SMTP:imxputs@knoware.nl]
> Sent:	Tuesday, March 10, 1998 2:52 AM
> To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject:	Re: [Leica] M6 J and a new M camera!
> 
>    The
> >>only person I know who believes the M6 is as well constructed as the M4
> >>and before is Marc.   While he might be proved correct in the long run,
> >>he certainly seems to be in the minority opinion.
> 
> You forget me. I have posted numerous emails trying to explain these
> facts.
> But to paraphrase Marc: truth is a commodity not always popular these
> days.
> And believing is psychologically much easier that accomodating to a truth
> that is not in conformity with long held and cherished notions.
> As a recent post stated: a repairperson would not touch a M4-2 and holds
> that an M4 is the last good Leica. So are many persons who believe that a
> M3 is the pinnacle of mechanical engineering.
> Citing named or unnamed repairpersons does not help resolving the problem:
> without facts to prove (statistical figures) or an objectified reference
> (why are M4 bodies better build? what does it mean to say 'better build')
> we stay in that old groove of hearsay.
> Well: the machining and quality control of the various parts, gears and
> components that are built in an M6 is quite superior to its illustrious
> predecessors. The most used assembly tool in the days of the famous M3 and
> M4 period was a wooded hammer to squeeze the parts into position as the
> production tolerances were a little (lax). The fine build of these
> products
> has been the result of dilligent and laborious use of manual adjustments
> and the selecting of parts with matching tolerances.
> As a very competent analist said in those days after visting the factory
> and its assembly lines: the finest asset of the leitz company is its
> competent and experienced workforce. That was the magic of the M3/4. I
> visit every year a gathering in Germany who call themselves 'Leitzianer'
> (Leitz people). And all stories are the same: judiscious use of countless
> manhours of manual labour generated the M quality. This fact explains the
> demise of the Leitz factory:in the fifties they had cheap labour as they
> employed many people who were wounded in the war.The governemt subsidised
> these employments to help the people get a job.  Later when the labourcost
> skyrocketed the M3/4 could not be produced economically.
> Modern production techniques and computercontrolled machining of parts is
> preferable to the old way of crafting the product. Old is not necessarily
> better.
> The discussion of the merits of leica bodies has a close parallel to the
> discussion about Leica lenses: old has often been stated to be better, but
> objective measurements disprove it time after time.
> 
> 
> Erwin
>