[Leica] Re: Leica 100% testing

[Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>]

Yes, I know. But testing each item, and "exhaustively" testing each item,
is two different things. If each item were exhaustively tested, we would
have "no" DOA's, scratched film, RF mis-alignment, etc, etc, etc.

Of course each camera, each lens, even each part that makes them, is QC'ed,
QA'ed, etc. But they cannot put the effort into it that would result in
100% perfection. Which, for some reason, some people expect.

Jim


At 10:39 AM 4/22/99 +0000, you wrote:
>Jim Brick wrote:
>
>>If Leica were to produce 100% perfect products, an ordinary M6 would
>cost
>$5000, as would a lens for it. To achieve 100% accuracy, each part
>would
>have to be engineered to far higher standards, and each and every
>piece of
>equipment would have to be individually exhaustively tested. It just
>cannot
>be done. There would be no Leica.
>
>Jim, I've just returned from the LHSA trip to Wetzlar and Solms. One
>of the things which Leica stressed during our factory tour was that
>every camera and every lens is individually tested before despatch.
>Our visit was on a Friday, and the production line was shut down, but
>the test department was hard at work on M6 bodies, and some lens
>testing was also going on.
>
>I don't know what US prices were like 40 years ago, but in Europe an
>M3 + 5cm Summicron cost as much as a small car, yet Leitz was almost
>overwhelmed with work - people were prepared to pay to get top quality
>even though the purchase of a second-hand M3 + Summicron could absorb
>half their annual earnings. Perhaps there is room for the price to
>rise if this will result in better quality and reliability - in the
>last eight months my M6 has spent more time at the Leica repair
>department than it has in my home! Today it's going back for its
>fourth repair in eight months.
>
>Regards,
>
>Doug Richardson
>
>
> than rather than the other way round.
>I'd rather have paid more for my M6 and had it
>