Re: [Leica] Advertising wars

["dan states" <dstate1@hotmail.com>]

I would suspect that no camera manufacturer (except Zeiss) really 
wants to get into an advertising war about who makes the "sharpest" 
lens.  The reality is that many other manufacturers make products that 
are of extremely high resolution, particularly when stopped down.  I 
have only seen 1 add, from Zeiss, touting their lenses as the 
"sharpest" you can buy.  As a Zeiss user I can tell you they are damn 
sharp lenses, but you give up flare control, and introduce a noticable 
measure of barrel distortion as a price. That would be a hard message 
to get across to the "sharpness only" crowd.  (Not the mention that 
whole "bokeh" thing). 


In reality 99.9% of photographs are taken on film that can not resolve 
detail as well as the lens on the camera.  Even "slow" films like 
Tmax100 start to look crappy when compared with some really slow, and 
generally difficult to use stuff like Tech Pan. I doubt many street 
photographers and photojournalists are willing to go back to 25 speed 
film just to get the maximum sharpness the format can product.  (most 
would just go to 645 format and 400 speed)


As for quality control, I guess I don't see the problems that you do.  
I have never purchased a new product from Leica that was not in 
perfect working condition.  I have only had 1 minor shutter adjustment 
made to my M6 in years of use.

It does not scratch film
It does not have a problem focusing at high aperatures
It does not have meter accuracy problems.....
My lenses all work perfectly.

Regarding testing the cameras, a visit to the factory will show that 
they test ALL the cameras, not just a selective few.  It should be 
noted that the LUG is a pretty picky group of folks....Sometimes we 
see more problems than there actually are...myself included.

Finally, no manufacturer can be sure of what happens to their product 
after it leaves their possesion.  I once visited a camera shop wher 
they demo'd the construction quality of the M6 by having a "portly" 
salesperson stand on it....
 
>Until the last few years the Leica cameras and lenses were really 
tops and 
>almost everyone was very loyal and protective of Leica.  Now, since 
the "bean 
>counters" were placed in charge of Leica, it appears Leica quality 
and 
>quality control has depreciated to the point that persons who have no 
>"quality control" training are find more and more factory defects 
that should 
>have been caught at the factory.  
>
>I now wonder what Leica USA does in regard to protecting USA 
customers.  Does 
>Leica USA at least select a certain number of samples from each 
shipment and 
>give the statistical sample a good examination for such items as 
focusing 
>mechanism, shutter specifications, pressure plate, winding mechanism, 
and 
>light meter or are the cameras just passed directly to the dealer and 
then 
>the customer?  
>
>Someone posted a message advising that the great majority of Leica 
"prints" 
>are "scanned" rather than enlarger printed.  Could some of those who 
are 
>"scanning" their prints enlighten us in regard to the quality 
provided by 
>"scanning" versus prints from Tech Pan or Kodachrome negatives 
enlarged using 
>Focomats, Durst L1200's or other really good enlargers with APO 
enlarging 
>lenses.  It may be that "scanning" does not do justice to high 
quality camera 
>equipment so there is no need for Leica to provide equipment that so 
awesome 
>that prints and slides from Leica equipment is discernible with the 
eye from 
>the equipment of other manufacturers.  As I recall, during the early 
60's 
>Leica had a vision that photographers were becoming very lazy and 
preferred 
>to have the corner drug store process and print Kodacolor so the 
resolution 
>of the lenses was dropped to enable the contrast level to be 
increased since 
>contrast, not resolution, was the ticket for Kodacolor.  Maybe this 
>cheapening of the manufacturing process is the natural progression of 
this 
>march toward mediocrity.  
>
>The LUG net has also had some posts regarding the quality of Leica 
brochures 
>and other publicity photos.  One of the Leica M-6 brochures sent to 
me 
>contained only one photo that was photographically "sharp" while the 
balance 
>appeared to be nothing more than out-of-focus and blurred snapshots 
that 
>could be snapped with any of the current $50 throwaways.  From side-
by-side 
>comparisons, we know the Leica rangefinder cameras and lenses are 
capable of 
>giving the 2 1/4 square cameras a run for their money if handled 
properly 
>both in the field and the resulting negatives properly processed and 
printed. 
> Why can't Leica Germany revise its marketing strategy to reflect 
that which 
>may be accomplished with a fine rangefinder camera and lenses?  If 
Leica 
>Germany cannot show why photographers may secure greater benefits 
from Leica 
>cameras and lenses than cameras and lenses costing many less, what is 
the 
>incentive for very many people to purchase their products?  Isn't it 
possible 
>for Leica Germany to ask Leica camera users to submit some really 
sharp 
>negatives or prints, if Leica German photographers cannot supply 
them, for 
>the purpose of showing what Leica cameras and lenses are capable of 
>producing.  Hasselblad promotional literature just blows away the 
stuff that 
>Leica Germany distributes.  There is no reason that Leica Germany 
cannot 
>compete with that type of quality and thus indicate to the 
prospective buyer 
>there is a reason, indeed, to purchase Leica equipment.
>
>The answer may be there really is not a demand for really top quality 
35 mm 
>camera equipment in today's market and we are just beating a dead 
horse.
>
>Further, it may be shortsighted of us to disparage those persons who 
buy 
>Leica cameras and lenses but only sit in a leather den chair and 
fondle their 
>expensive purchases.  I have a sneaking hunch that if it were not for 
those 
>persons who just like to own what they think is the best, there might 
not be 
>enough of a demand for the Leica product to keep the factory open in 
Solms.  
>Please, let's not discourage potential Leica camera owners just 
because they 
>do not make a living through photography.
>
>The bottom line is we need to encourage Leica Germany to regain its 
quality 
>control and manufacturing edge so the Leica owner really does possess 
the 
>finest camera equipment that can be produced.  An extra $100.00 is 
not the 
>make or breaking point since you can thumb through the photo 
magazines and 
>note the various dealers are selling the same Leica items for prices 
that 
>vary at least $100.00 and these same dealers have been doing this for 
years.  
>If an extra $100.00 per camera body or lens is required to do the job 
right, 
>it is my belief persons who will pay $2000.00 for a camera body and 
the same 
>or more for a lens, will gladly pay the extra $100.00 to insure t

_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com