Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/02/29

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Vs: [Leica] Re: R help - long
From: "Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi>
Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 20:22:38 +0100

German magazine Color Foto did a survey among the readership 9/89 and really found out that there were indeed problems with (early) R4 cameras (not R4s). R4 is described as "Sorgenkind" - the child of sorrow - of the Leica cameras. The percentage of malfunctions amongst the Leica cameras was 24.3% and individual percentages of the cameras are not disclosed but the percentage for the R3 is said to be over 30% - good for an old, discontinued model - and that the reliable R4s plays only a minor role in statistics and the reliable R5 and M cameras improve the picture only slightly. So one wonders, how bad the R4 really is? Maybe something like over 40% - or more?
Yes, I do remember some LUGger writing in defence of the R4 but that is only to be expected because not every single R4 is defective. And yes - the M6 itself "ist kein Musterknabe" or model boy - but no details here, either.
BTW the best was Nikon with 15.6% defects (FM/FM2 only 6.7%), then Yashica (yes, really) 16.6%, Ricoh (yes, really) 17.1%, Canon 19.6%, Leica - as stated - 24.3%, Pentax 25.9%, Minolta 26% and Contax 30.3%.
If you really want to know, the worst was Minox with 57.1% followed by Rollei 45.7%, Fuji 42.9, Konica 41.6%, Olympus 38.0% (OM-4 51.7%), Praktica 35.2%, Hasselblad 33.3% and Mamiya 30.5%.
Interesting - but remember this was 1989. Reliable? When a German magazine praises the quality of Japanese cameras, they are not lying.
All the best!
Raimo
photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen

- -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
Lähettäjä: christian becker <8fps@gmx.de>
Vastaanottaja: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Päivä: 29. helmikuuta 2000 14:31
Aihe: [Leica] Re: R help


>>R3 and R4 less reliable than those mentioned above.<
>
>AHEM! What sort of knowledge is this comment based on?
>Personal experience? Poll? Lots of friends who whined 'bout their broken
>R3s and R4s? Heard from someone who knows a guy who's friend had a broken R3
>sometime ago? Statistics? Mean value? Standard deviation?
>
>There is definitely no reliable source of information to support this
>conclusion. 
>
>-- 
>click before it is too late
>
>Sent through GMX FreeMail - http://www.gmx.net
>
>