[Leica] current Leica quality

[Erwin Puts <imxputs@knoware.nl>]

Mike wrote in part:
>Granted, all I am talking about are the tactile and visual 
>impressions of quality, not objective
>engineering-level performance standards. But as far as tactile and 
>visual impressions of quality are concerned, >there is only one test 
>that is needed, in two parts, viz.:
>1. Look at and handle and old cameras and lenses.
>2. Look at and handle the new cameras and lenses.

I never made any comment about people liking the feel and handling of 
any Leica. Feelings are not at issue. But the point is that Mike and 
Mr Gandy extend their feeling and admiration for the older products 
to conclude and now we are leaving the realm of feeling and 
preferences that the engineering of the M6
"is a joke" (Mr Gandy) which is demonstrably untrue  (to stay on the 
polite side of the debate).
And if Mike tells us that by simple visual and tactical comparison 
the new Elmar-M is "in terms of
build-quality it is just this side of shoddy by comparison", he too 
transgresses the thin but very firm line of opinion versus fact. If 
the build quality would feel to Mike as shoddy I would not even 
bother to react. Now Mike tells us, disregarding (his quote: ) 
"objective engineering-level performance standards, that the new 
Elmar is a shoddy piece of engineering. Here I feel urged to say NO 
to Mike. If you make statements about the engineering quality you 
need to follow the measurable engineering standards and prove your 
point by choice of material, mechanical tolerances and other fine 
points of manufacturing analysis. There is no QED here: that is to 
accept things on face value.
We are not campaigning for the presidential election where all 
registers of persuasion may be used. We are trying to establish the 
hypothesis that older Leica products are better build than newer ones 
and the older ones were manufactured without any cost consideration, 
where the current ones are less well build because of cost 
considerations.
I do agree as I noted in my 1997 post that current Leica products 
have been subject to some measures of manufacturing rationalization, 
which in my view is not equal to saying that the current products are 
shoddy, a joke or less well build.
The analysis if the Summicron 2/50 (six element current version) is 
correct, in fact I wrote the same story.   But again it is partly a 
matter of interpretation and partly a matter of solid fact. If the 
Summicron is easier to manufacture and it can be done more 
economically, why then is the inference that it must be a cheap 
engineering product. I would conclude the other way. With less parts 
to check, with less components to machine or grind or  assemble, the 
product can be of higher quality, as QC can be intensified, and less 
errors need to be corrected.
Mike concludes: "But at the summit of the contest for "best" tactile 
and visual quality--the feel, the look, the sense of it--I just don't 
think it can be argued that some of the older equipment was more 
precise, better machined, more luxurious, and of better finish. "
As I said above, we were not in a contest of which camera feels best, 
we try to establish if the "older equipment was more precise 
(accuracy of shutter times, tolerances of the rangefinder masks?), 
better machined (again, tolerance for matching parts, roughness of 
surface?) and of better finish (more durable, more wear resistant?). 
I am amazed that  one can conclude from the look and feel of a camera 
that its internal parts are machined to a tighter tolerance or that 
the choice of materials is superior.   A feel of a camera might 
inspire confidence and admiration, but the assessment of its 
engineering is a QC and shop act, not a gutfeeling.

Erwin