Re: [Leica] Pressure Response Erwin

[DonjR43198@aol.com]

Post from Mr. Puts allows:

The quality of Leica equipment is now higher than in the past, tolerances
are tighter now than in the past. But Leica now is a small company with
small production runs and they rely for a large part on subcontractors for
many components that have to be made in small quantities. Not every
manufacturer is willing to tool machinery for a small quantity and Leica
therefor has to be very selective: small production runs and excellent
quality for a reasonable price is difficult to find. The pressure plate
problem is a case: indeed one person in the factory that produces the
plates fell ill and had to be replaced for a while by another person who
apparently was not as skilled.

Mark: I hope Mr. Puts revelations regarding the problems Leica quality 
control has been experiencing is not too devastating for our tender souls.  
It is astounding that a replacement worker was put in charge of producing 
pressure plates and quality control overlooked the problem.  The poor soul 
who sat in for the sick pressure plate technician must have been very, very 
busy, indeed.  My M-6 is #2287XXX which I am told is not of late vintage 
while others reporting M-6 pressure plate problems indicate their cameras are 
much later in production.  This suggests many faulty pressure plates were 
produced without adequate quality control.  Now that Leica admits of a 
problem, Leica must have a list of M-6 cameras in which this production run 
of pressure plates were installed.  If so, Leica might feel it prudent to 
notify the owners or issue a notice through various photography magazines of 
potential trouble with M-6 cameras from serial number XXX to XXXX so 
unsuspecting users are not surprised.  At least that would have been a good 
faith effort that even manufacturers of less than precision instruments such 
as automobiles and trucks do on a regular basis.
 
You are not the only one surprised by this problem.  I believe we have all 
been lulled into a false sense of security by the impeccable Leica standards 
that we came to rely upon.  Had not several LUG members not reported the 
problem, we would not have caught the problem until nice negatives were 
spoiled.  Now we are learning we cannot be so assured and must be somewhat 
wary of the equipment.  

This lack of candor is part of what I mean when I refer to "bean counter" 
attitude, i.e., let the buyer beware and don't fess up til caught.  It did 
not require Mr. Puts to confirm the problems, the faulty parts were proof 
positive of the problem.  Now that Mr. Puts has confirmed for everyone the 
problem, and we know Leica has fallen into this modus operandi, we may be on 
guard, at least for the obvious problems that may be caught with the naked 
eye.  Leica is still the premier 35 mm camera and lens maker, at least in the 
opinion of this writer.

Is Mr. Puts an employee of Leica or just a person very interested in Leica 
equipment?  I hang on his every word regarding the new Leica lenses.

It is hoped we may put this saga behind us and move on to other productive 
discussions, and I do consider this productive since it brought to light a 
problem and it is being resolved.  Now days resolving a problem is progress 
in my book.