Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/04/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]imxputs wrote: > > My explanation of the pressure plate problem has been preceded by Eric Welch's > identical info as he got it from US cources. Bottom line here is this I would > dare to say: any industrial product (mass produced or small scale produced or > hand crafted or a mix of these) can and will show defects occassionally. > Humans and machines are fallible whatever the level of QC. The fact that some > person made a fault is not in any way indicative of the general level of QC at > Leica. The fact that one acknowledges it freely is very reassuring as this > indicates a willingness to address the problem and an open eye for > improvements. SNIP > Erwin Erwin et al., Is it appropriate to ask Leica for the serial numbers of the production run of potentially flawed pressure plates? Since there seems to be a concession on their part that some flawed backs exist, would it not be appropriate to make consumers aware; much like an auto manufacturer's recall? I realize that this would likely add to the fission of comments already multiplying on this thread. Which, I for one, would gladly see end. However, if it can prevent the loss of a valuable image perhaps it's worth it. On a slightly related note... When I view photos made by Cartier-Bresson primarily in 1952/53 I notice that with his full-image printing there is the inclusion of sprocket holes. It seems that many of his photos from this vintage had the image area overflowing onto the sprocket holes and, as such the holes were included rather than cropping off any part of the photo. Does anyone have any knowledge of this? - -- Carl Socolow http://members.tripod.com/SocPhoto/