Hello folks of (Leica) world!!! (With aologies to the memory of Spike)

The Leica quality lives on despite changes and economy measures.

I visit a lot of industrial facilities where they punch out parts and products by the millions, literally like cookies. I visited a bakery last week that makes 3 billion cookies a year. Compare that to a few dozen or hundred lenses.

I recently did the Big Nasty: I took apart a Leica lens to "Fix It" or more accurately clean it and the viewing goggles on an RF 35mm Summaron 2.8. I have gutted other cameras and a lot of mechanical stuff, but I was amazed at the Quality of the lens. Compared to most other cameras and even most scientific equipment it was a revelation: the accuracy of the machining, the quality of the metal, the finish - all to the highest standard of any scientific instrument.

No wonder that to stay competitive, they must start instituting some economies.

Most computer companies farm almost all their mass product assembly - pick any well known Name Brand-out to 3rd party assembly specialists, who make it, put it in a Name Brand box and ship it to the stores. The Name Brand is fast becoming a research and marketing organization. I visit these plants in Malaysia, Thailand and China, Taiwan and Singapore and every name brand may be coming out of the same factory.

Cosina makes, besides our precious Voigtlanders, all Ricohs, Nikon F10s, Vivitars and many others. Do you think Hewlett Packard has a camera plant? ELCAN in Midland Canada make " optical elements" for assembly in Solms.

Our beloved image of sturdy Germanic craftsmen at benches who will methodically hand-craft my entire Summicron evaporated with the 80s. I am grateful to Leica for doing what they do and as well as they do: still the World Standard in mechanical -up until last week anyhow- cameras and lenses.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002

Answers

Let me start by saying I sincerely enjoy Leica M and agree with you about their quality products.

I believe Leica has survived in spite of their obvious business incompetence. Their retail outlet system is appalling. Some retailers have little of no products (some just have batteries) and others are well stocked. The Internet will certainly not make their local (USA) distribution system stronger. The weak will get weaker. B & H, etc., will most likely get stronger. So how will new people get their hands on a Leica is they don’t like in a big urban area? They rarely if ever come out with a product on when they say they will have it ready for market. When they do, there is normally a long period of time to be able to purchase it.

I don’t know what kind of market research they do, but the M7 will appeal to only some Leica users. A fast shutter speed with a few other features would have been nice. Many people under 25 have never even heard of Leica. Unfortunately and sadly, it reminds me of the word Oldsmobile.

Eddie

-- Edward Steinberg (es323@msn.com), March 14, 2002.

I buy a lot of Voigtlander stuff. I really don't understand why people have any issues with quality--in some respects the quality is better than Leica--the feel of the clickstops being one example, because aluminum and zinc never feels like brass and steel. . . . However, back to the question, does it really matter if my stuff is going to last until the next ice age, vs. 50 years or so? I won't be here, either way, and the technology changes faster than the equipment wears, regardless. I've got Olympus stuff still going since 1973, and I'd wish it WOULD die so I could justify getting rid of it.

Then there's another issue that no one ever thinks to mention re:Leica. When I handled my first Nikon F I thought it was junk because it rattled when I shook it. I now realize that tight construction mandates lubrication, care, and cleanliness. A piece of dirt that will stop a precision machine cold falls right through the works of something cruder, so in the real world precision is often the fetish of the fussy (read all about it on LUG!), not a real advantage. I still think Nikon Fs aren't all that well made, but they sure refuse to die.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), March 14, 2002.

RICHARD,

I completely agree with your assessment of Leica quality...of 50's and 60's lenses. I unscrewed the heads of my chrome lenses for easier cleaning and the quality is evident: the threads mesh perfectly and when rejoined has NO play and will not creep a micrometer when I try to tighten more; the indexes line up perfectly. The focus and aperture rings turn buttery smooth and feel damped. I will never sell my chrome lenses. As it is said: Euro/aerospace quality.

The M7 is LARGELY mechanical; it only has electronic governors.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 14, 2002.

Funny you should mention the Nikon F, Michael, my feelings are the same. Quality compared to the F2 is obvious. But most of the F's I see still go click! FM and FM2's feel cheap too- but are very reliable machines!

There is only room for one company to make the highest quality product. Asking different people you'll usually get different answers- But for 35's, Those who know will tell you....

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), March 14, 2002.

My dear fellow Leica fans,

I’m stunned how old sayings are hard to die in our community…

Back 30 or 40 years ago, mass production was obviously conducive to large tolerances in assembly. Control was surely less efficient as it was the manual (hence slow and costly) part of the operation. So, handcrafted things were reputed to be better than mass produced objects (less tolerances because of manual individual adjustments, a kind of systematic control of each product which was beyond the capabilities of mass production).

But, come on, we are no more living under those technical limitations for mass production. Laser cut and alignment is far more reliable than any master craftsman’s eye and hand. Automatic control of each parts is possible through the use of computers as is very tight tolerances in assembly.

One of us pointed out that sometimes even lowly (or considered so) Cosina lenses give a better feeling of quality than our cherished Leica lenses of modern construction… Sounds strange doesn’t it? Easy to understand though: they simply use better raw material at Cosina’s than Leica does today… Is it believable? Yes, as the return to better raw material use, treated by a modern facility is economically possible because the modern facility permits you tremendous economies in manpower hours. So you get a product which can be sold cheaper without sacrificing good quality. Leica proceeded too often the other way as when they “simplified” the finder of the M6 to lower the production costs and made the finder have flare in backlit situations. I admire Leica, the optician, for producing without any compromise the best small format lenses in the world and keep the “special touch” in determining what compromise (any lens is a compromise) will be the most useful to the photographer. I no more praise them as a camera maker because they adopted a more than conservative (I may used even the word reactionary) attitude in their approach of the development of the M series since the commercial failure of the M5 (even going backwards for awhile). In fact, they refused to invest in the progress.

Hardly a traditional behavior of Leica in the past, as M bodies were ever before in the forefront of real innovation (I don’t mean fashionable gadgetry). They stood with old fashioned way to produce counting on us, their customers, to be fooled by their reputation and they were helped in this way by the fact Leica remained the only producer of a small format RF camera for years. Nowadays, things are becoming more and more apparent as new RF from other manufacturers are marketed, and at a much lower price by the way. Cosina Bessas bodies are entry level RF, not quite the quality of the M, it is true, but you finally get much more “bang for the buck” with them. Konica Hexar RF body has nothing to envy in terms of quality of construction to a M body (for example titanium is not an option) and what eventually is inferior in performance to a M6 TTL is more than probably the result of the attempt of its manufacturer to negotiate an agreement with Leica than a lack of ability to produce an “M killer”. The M7 is nothing more than an answer to the Hexar RF and should the Hexar RF had never materialized it would probably never had existed… But not a cheap answer, costing more than twice than its competitor… Suppose the M7 has no Leica logo on it … Would anybody will accept to pay such amount of money for it when there is an Hexar RF available?

Those who will buy it – because it is labelled Leica – will buy – despite the CHEAP electronics built in – a camera with a 50 years + old shutter, with an unbelievably awkward loading systems precluding any future adaptation to digital photography, with a high proportion of manual assembly that raises its cost without any benefit for the user and no better tolerances than an automatically assembled camera on a modern line. And cheaper and cheaper raw material used to maintain the price to a level which simply permits it to sale at all

Since years, Leica has relied on collectors (foolish men) instead on users to inflate their financial results and they are still in the red…

May be it is time for them to re-think all this policy and go back to the real spirit of Barnack. I simply hope it won’t be too late…

Would I were in the Directorate at Solms, I would have reached an agreement with Konica to produce a better M7, a real 21st century small format RF camera, at Konica’s and re-centred my activities where Leica is still the best: the production of the best small format lens in the world and even for them I would have modernized the line as to permit the use of raw material of the best quality to match the one of the lenses without increasing their price.

Friendly from a Leica lens user

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), March 15, 2002.

Richard, you are absolutely right. Looking at my M3 and even older IIIa I am amazed at how well made they are. The chromework on the IIIa is fantastic - and this on a camera that is 67 years old! The original Summar works perfectly too. German quality really is not a myth: I think the Germans have a great tradition of precision engineering (Feinmechanik) and it shows. Incidentally, I do not think that merely sticking a badge on a product is a sign of good quality; it's just a marketing exercise.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), March 16, 2002.

Dear David,

I am sitting in front two of my Leica lenses, namely a Summicron 35mm F/2 sporting the “inglorious indication” (for a Leica lens) “made in Canada” and a Tele-Elmarit 135 mm f/4 of the separate hood variety labelled “made in Germany by Leitz Wetzlar”. Both were bought second hand. As I watched them carefully it is obvious the 35 mm, while more recent, has been built with much less care to the details. For example the engravings on the barrel are slightly clogged by the paint. However it performs very well (and published comparatives between the same models made in Wetzlar proves it performs equally well). The older 135 mm seems however in much more mint condition (may be it was better treated, may be it was simply better finished, both lenses are black) the f stop clicks are more positive and the f stop ring doesn’t seem ready to leave the barrel (also it never actually happened on the 35 mm). So is it because the 35 mm lens was made in Canada it feels cheaper made ? I don’t think so. I have had the opportunity more than once to handle brand new made in Germany Leica lens (no more labelled Leitz) and they are very much akin in aspect and feeling the one made in Canada. Not a single one had ever the feeling of my 60’s made Tele-Elmarit. We have all the scientific evidences to conclude the new lenses are better than ever in their optical quality but I’m sorry to say as far as the finish is concerned they are obviously not in the same league than their elder brothers.

That a 67 year old Leica III F or G (though kept in reasonable conditions, as I saw a fairly sizeable number deeply ruined) has still a very discernible appearance of a piece of fine precision mechanic doesn’t really surprises me. But how can you prove anything with such an example which is related to present day products? Leica (then Leitz Wetzlar) did produce very fine examples of high end German precision mechanic 67 year ago, true, nobody will pretend the contrary. Does it prove this tradition is still enforced today at Solms? Definitely NOT.

What is true is the optical part of the production, the lenses, never failed – whenever and wherever they were built – to the highest optical standard obtainable at the time they were produced.

But the mechanical parts, though generally performing as advertised, are no more in par with anything produced before the 70’s. This is due both to a less careful finish and the use of cheaper material. It is probably linked to the commercial failure of the M5 (in fact not so bad a body as far as the users are concerned after the meter arm failure were fixed) and the financial consequences that ensued for Leitz. But whatever is the real explanation, we must face the truth: the “tender loving mechanical care” and top finish once the trade mark of Leica labelled products are no more substantiated by the manufacturer present standards.

Just consider the following facts:

A very low priced 21 mm f/4 from Cosina Voigtländer series (it happens to be, its accessory finder included, more or less equivalent in price to a Leica accessory finder alone for their 21 mm f/2.8 lens) which is, of course, not performing at the same level to its Leica made focal length equivalent, appears to be better built and better finished.

I chose this example on purpose, because the edge in performance of the Leica made one over the Cosina one is only noticeable where it is generally not very useful (full aperture use of a 21 mm is something hardly required in most practical situations). It means, unless the optical edge in performance of the Leica product is spot on your requirements, you have serious reasons to chose another brand. Which is a real shame for Leica.

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not telling you Leica is not worth buying anymore. But you must be seriously motivated by specific needs to buy Leica as nowadays they are no more alone on the market of M mount compatible devices which, more than often, have the edge in building and finishing qualities. The question being more related to the prices you pay for the Leica logo versus what you get in return than pure performance analysis as far as the lenses are concerned. However, when it goes to the M camera bodies, my opinion is clear: even on the performance side, they are not worth the difference in price and the new M7 specs do not contribute to change my mind.

What is unbelievable is that Leica is still relying on a rich and exceptional history of PAST top quality, forefront level of technique and top reliability to fool their customers into paying small fortunes for a reputation in fine mechanical precision and high level of finish which is no more substantiated in anyway in their present products.

Leica is still the best optical designer around for small format camera lenses (and will hardly have any problem in maintaining this high level, considering their other, much more profitable, divisions are using the same tools) but is no more than a shadow of its glorious past when it goes to quality of the material used and attention to the finish of their products.

Even more disturbing (as less quality doesn’t seem to impair the ability of the products to perform well) is the fact they have not made a single serious effort to retake a real edge over the newly appeared competitors which manifested themselves since a few years after they stood alone in the field of SFRF camera bodies for so much years in a nearly comatose state, the M7 being hardly more than a “deluxe” Hexar RF (by the price more by its specs).

Leica camera is in the red since years… How long will their owners permit this ?

I don’t want to lose the best of what they offer: their exceptional lenses and I’m sure most of you will agree with me on that point.

Does the M7 and the probable 325,527 special series to be extrapolated from it will be able to save the M series ? I definitely don’t think so.

One should better consider the fact the small format range finder concept, now confronted to widespread modern 35 mm cameras, and no less modern (though less widespread) MF SLR’s, is scarcely used alone. And you don’t have a modern all automatic Visoflex to explore the domains it can’t reach. It is by essence whether a complement of another system or the other system is its mandatory complement. Though it is a more than viable concept and an irreplaceable piece of equipment under certain circumstances, it has to be affordable enough to justify itself despite some shortcomings or it has to be at the peak of efficiency where it performs the best and have a “conceptual” edge over the other solutions. Leica can no more avoid to tackle this dilemma. Whether they accept the imperfections of the M7 do not justify its price and lower it has to be competitive with the Hexar RF or they produce FAST a M8 packing all what modern technology can offer to the basic concept and justify a much higher price. But anyway, they’ll have to rely on users more than collectors and nostalgic people to stay alive.

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), March 17, 2002.

Some years ago, I happened across a Leicina, one of the nicer ones with an Angenieux zoom lens, at a flea market for only $25. I bought it because it was so pretty and would make such a nice paperweight. Having bought it, I decided to make it work and to shoot a little 8/8 film with it. So I took it apart, solved its minor electrical problems, reassembled it, and actually used it a little. All this in the late '80s.

Now, the camera was very nicely enameled and the moving parts were nicely finished and went together nicely and all that, but from my perspective it was still a misbegotten piece of junk. The designers had apparently adapted a spring-powered little cine camera to electric power, and had done it in a terribly stupid way. The 8/8 Leicina has a single drive shaft, from motor to shutter mechanism, with a nicely machined slot in it. This slot is engaged by a pawl, in turn worked by a nicely-made linkage from the trigger. Pull the trigger, disengage the pawl, the thing will go. Release the trigger, the pawl will engage, stopping the shutter in the closed position. Cute, eh? No, damn stupid, because the electricity to the motor is turned on and off by the main power switch and the trigger has nothing to do with that. The camera ate batteries at an unbelievable rate, thanks to leaving the motor stalled and drawing current when the trigger was released.

My point is that there's build quality, and there's quality that matters. Leica may be good at the one, the M-7 and my little paperweight are evidence that they're disastrous at the other.

Further on that point, I've been reading about Leica's high rejection rate for components. To me, this doesn't speak of high standards, it speaks of abysmally poor manufacturing processes that are terribly out of control. The late W. E. Deming would probably have refused to take Leica on as a client because they're so focused on the wrong thing.

Cheers,

Dan

-- Dan Fromm (76266.333@compuserve.com), March 19, 2002.

Dan ,

You write a number of comments on the “Leicina” cine-camera. Though what you expose is totally pertinent, the conclusion seems to me rather unfair as a lot of contemporary photographic devices had such shortcomings and few had anything which could be linked to any kind of ergonomics… So I won’t comment further on that point but to acknowledge you pointed out something important: well made is something different than well conceived.

Then you write

>> Further on that point, I've been reading about Leica's high rejection rate for components. To me, this doesn't speak of high standards, it speaks of abysmally poor manufacturing processes that are terribly out of control. The late W. E. Deming would probably have refused to take Leica on as a client because they're so focused on the wrong thing. <<

Is high rejection rate ever attributable to poor manufacturing process ? I don’t think so. Most very high precision devices in the past had necessitated high rejection rates to comply with very tight tolerances. A very common mistake is to believe with such devices handcrafting leads to high precision and high quality of manufacture. Handcrafting or hand finishing used to be the only way to achieve such tight tolerances with the technology available up to and including part of the seventies. But these goals couldn’t possibly be achieved without a high rejection rate of parts as on the contrary to popular belief, hand made or hand finished things, even handled by highly qualified craftsmen are never of a regular quality. Only the use of new technologies with computer controlled tools and laser cut and automatic control can achieve regularly stringent requirements as those accepted as the norm at Leica’s.

The real problem with Leica is these modern tools are scarcely used but manually and for control purpose, excepts may be for the cutting and polishing of aspheric lenses. You will notice that known for years these aspheric elements didn’t came into general use until recently and were reserved to extremely expensive lenses due to a mandatory hand finished manufacturing procedure including a very high rejection rate rising the costs sky high. Only laser cuts, computer controlled polishing machines and laser surface control has permitted a more automated way and a much lesser rejection rate.

The reason why the rejection rate is so high at Leica’s is not the lack of qualification or the laziness of the workers, but the use of outmoded manual or semi-manual procedures of 1950’s – 1970’s vintage which implies a high rejection rate to comply with tight tolerances. This is why the Leica products are so high and have in fact a very bad value for money ratio. Whatever pleasing and well made is the final product and, as far as the lenses are concerned, because of the exceptional performances allowed by a very gifted and competent optical department at the conception level, the lack of proper investment is at the source of this problem. Should Leica had invested enough in the modernization of its lines, rejection rate should have drastically be reduced and the prices would have become much more affordable and (or) the raw material used and the finishing of the products would not have declined in time to maintain the level of the already excessive prices.

Regards

François P. WEILL

-- François P. WEILL (frpawe@wanadoo.fr), March 20, 2002.

Francois, I think we're almost in agreement.

My point about manufacturing processes and reject rate is that when the reject rate is high, the thing to do is to improve the process so that it can't produce out-of-spec product. Inspection to weed out the unsatisfactory after the goods have been made, as Leica does, is entirely backwards.

"out of control" is a term from statistical process control, and wasn't intended to impugn Leica's workers. Leica's problem isn't the people who do the actual work, its management. Now, if Leica the camera concern could import managers from Leica Microscopy, who seem to go from strength to strength, ...

A propos of aspheric surfaces, I appreciate the difficulty of making them with automatic lens grinders, but surely only a few Leica lenses have any asperic surfaces? Aspheric lenses been around for quite a while; I have a cine lens, an Elgeet Golden Navitar 12/1.2, whose rear element's front surface is aspherical. Not a great lens in spite of that. It has to date from the '60s.

Cheers,

Dan

-- Dan Fromm (76266.333@compuserve.com), March 20, 2002.