Why is Quality Control so low?

<p>That was a fine wrap up, Ted. I think quite a few people would have laid low after such a barrage.</p>

<p>[start rant]<br>

By the way, reading some remarks about rigorous testing... I shoot all my pictures hand held, I tend to pixel peep and I still think that a lot of the shots are sharp. Maybe my standards are lower than others, maybe my hands are more steady than others. I don't know but I do know that for me -unless I'm pushing it- the results are sharp enough.<br>

[end rant]</p>

 

<p>Now, Ted, you sure didn't just wave the white flag. But you probably are looking at back-in-the-day through some rose colored ND filters.<br /><br />Back when you were shooting film, you "fixed" things in advance by matching film stock to light source, and then relied on an experienced pro in the lab if prints had to be critical (enter considerable work in the darkroom, which has simply moved to the desktop, instead). You can still leave all of that to a pro, and just shoot - just like you did with film, if that's how you like it.<br /><br />And of <em>course</em> lenses have always had sweet spots. Especially at the consumer price level. They're better now than they used to be. Your concern about "using all of the f stops and not worrying about softness" is related to diffraction. That's a laws of physics issue, and has absolutely nothing to do with quality control. Diffraction has always been an issue, and always will be. Its impact varies with sensor/film/body format and which lens is in play. Some people shooting with smaller format digital bodies seem to think that diffraction is some sort of new-on-the-scene curse that came along with digital devices or newer lenses, and that what happens at f/22 on an APS-C format sensor is somehow the result of sloppy engineering at the factory. It's the photons, man - they are what they are, and they do what they do when you chase them through a small hole to project them onto a small surface.<br /><br />As for what "we" seem to do, in terms of shooting more and hoping ... how would you define "we?" People who are critically concerned about results, and who know enough to fuss over issues like diffraction, are as deliberate today as they were in the past - possibly more so, since the photographer <em>is</em> the lab these days in many cases, and can see things at the pixel level the moment they happen. The difference is that now they can experiment more because they don't have to involve a wet lab and the wait time to see how a different technique is panning out.</p>

<p>I think a lot of the qa/qc issues are operator error, you know, RTFM. I've got about 7 functioning eos bodies bet. digital and film, and I'm not about to send them to Canon to be calibrated. If I want critical focus I use a tripod and mf.</p>

<p>I've been shooting since 1980 and buying from B&H almost the entire time. I've only had one thing defective out of the box, a 5d-1 body, but it was repaired by Canon. I seriously doubt it underwent a QA/QC check at the factory that included firing the camera and recording to a CF card, because if it had my body would never have left the factory. </p>

Why is quality control so low? Because only one guy works there.

 

Get it? One guy? Solo?

 

Bwaah-ha-ha-ha!

 

All of my Canon stuff has worked well so far. My Nissan is another story.

There was a great post on the Nikon forum a couple of weeks ago. The poster was complaining because they thought that their new D7000 was supposed to come "with HDR.". They were unhappy that HDR wasn't a built in

feature. Unrealistic expectations.

<blockquote>

<p>We could use all of the f stops on our lens and not worry about softness, we would only worry about depth of feld. No sweet spots.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, all those things were there, but in the absence of the internet, no one much noticed them.<br>

In actual historical fact, the photomagazines back into the 30s talk about professionals going to the store and trying out one lens after another of a particular model to find the "perfect one". It was certainly more justified then than now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you feel insecure, bring your lens and body to the Canon repair service and have them properly calibrated to each other.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wasn't insecure or paranoid:</p>

<ul>

<li>My brand new EOS3 did play up <strong>consistently</strong> whenever it was cold and/or a bit damp (like early morning chill, conditions that never seemed to affect my backup Elan 7e body), namely the display inside the viewfinder didn't work, but the body came back from Canon's own service with "no problem detected" note -- it was neither detected nor fixed in spite of my detailed description of when and how the issue was manifesting itself. </li>

<li>When the flash started to short-circuit the batteries, they blamed it on the batteries (which I changed when I noticed how hot they got, but the fresh set didn't fare well either, which led me to believe the Speedlite was at fault) and send it back to me without even touching it. Repairing it "independently" wasn't economical -- would have cost me more than buying a new one -- so I had to toss it out. </li>

<li>When 28-135 IS came back from a repair (I dropped it, or rather a gust of wind blew my tripod over, causing the aperture to get stuck), I had to send it back when I noticed a loose screw rattling inside the lens (I could see it through the front element, and it was sizable, not one of those super-tiny ones), and when I got it back the second time, the zoom action was never smooth again (persistent squeaking) and IS was making loud noises it didn't used to, but they refused to replace the lens although they were clearly unable to fix it properly. </li>

</ul>

<p>So yeah, I'm with Ted.<br />Not just poor manufacturing QC but also unacceptable Customer Service x(</p>

<p>P.S.<br />Oh, that's a good story too. When the collars on my Gitzo tripod got stuck, upon inspection Gitzo service advised me they would have to cut and replace them, and quoted me a price to which I said thanks but no thanks. I then took it to some little workshop, and guess what? -- not only did the guys there somehow manage to get the collars un-stuck, but they didn't even charge me for their service!</p>

 

<p>My images have generally improved since I moved from shooting mainly with Canon FD gear to shooting mainly with EOS film and digital gear. I attribute this to four factors: improved metering, autofocus, (marginally) improved optics, and my own improving technique.</p>

<p>I have never thought that Canon had "quality control issues," then or now.</p>

<p>Ted, i have a story that might make some sense. I have been shooting my Mamiya RZ 67 for years using film and scanning and never once did i stop to think of quality until i purchased a digital back to use with it. At first I thought the back had issues because i was getting some pretty crappy images and even thought it might be a calibration issue. As a matter of fact i even got word from a reputable camera repair store that i had to send them both the camera and back for calibration. After lots of trial and error i figured out that my problem was with with me and not the back at all. I now shoot and get excellent results with the digital back. In fact i get better results than from my scanned film even when i scan with drum. I know i'll get some slack from this comment.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

<p>It's always easy (too easy in my view) to blame "pilot error", but consider this. Reports of bad lenses are not rare. For example, "I bought the Whizbang 85mm f/1.0 and it didn't focus properly so I had to return it for a replacement." If it is an unsolicited comment by a random poster then a high rate of reported defects could be explainable by selective reporting, as has already been pointed out. In other words, maybe there were only a handful of bad Whizbangs made, but if someone got one they are more likely to make a post on it than the satisfied users.</p>

<p>However, if it appears in a review in which the author started out with the intent of reviewing the Whizbang then a bad report is much less likely to be selective reporting. In that case a bad report is much more likely to represent a non-rare event.</p>

<p>What is more telling is that some persons have reported having to make multiple exchanges before receiving a Whizbang that worked well. This is telling on two accounts. First, if the author eventually obtained a good Whizbang it seems more likely that pilot error is not at fault, but rather the lens (or whatever product) itself was at fault.</p>

<p>Second, based on probability theory, and making the assumption that sampling of independent units is statistically independent, if someone receives two bad Whizbangs in a row it is likely that the defect rate is high. For example, if the defect rate is 1% then the chance of receiving two faulty Whizbangs in a row is 1% squared, or 1 in 10,000. Thus, two consecutive Whizbangs would be a rare event, and reports of consecutive defective units is a pretty good indicator that the defect rate is high. Continuing this line of thought, if the defect rate is 1% then the probability of receiving three defective Whizbangs in a row is one in a million, a very rare event. Therefore, if anyone is receiving two bad Whizbangs in a row it would be reasonably strong evidence for poor quality control, and three bad Whizbangs in a row would be very strong evidence of poor quality control.</p>

<p>Now, let us consider quality control theory. The current standard for best practice at the best companies is something known as six sigma, which basically means that the defect rate is approximately one in a million tries. What constitutes a "try" could be open to some interpretation. Does that refer to the individual parts, or to the assembled whole? Nevertheless, based on the not-infrequent reports of lens defects it seems to me that the camera companies today are probably not operating at a six sigma level.</p>

<p>Finally, it is probably worth addressing the question of just what would be an acceptable defect rate. Is 10% unacceptable? It would be in my view, though others may disagree. Is 1% unacceptable? In my view that would also be too high. In my opinion a defect rate on something like a camera lens should be 0.1% or less. I say this from the point of view of a consumer, but also someone who knows a little about quality control. (I am involved somewhat in a quality control program at my place of employment, though what we deal in is not similar to optical components.)</p>

<p>Further discussion is welcome. Please throw flames if you want, but please keep it civil.</p>

<p>Alan,</p>

<p>Or you could read the link that I posted many comments ago that explains exactly why people think they need to go through 4 lenses before they get a good one. Notice almost all of these "quality control problems" are sharpness related, very rarely anything else, doesn't that seem strange to you?</p>

<p>To make it easier to find the common sense within this thread here is <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/">the link again</a>.</p>

<p>Civil enough? :-)</p>

<p>Ted:<br>

I own more than $30K of Nikon equipment, most of it pro-grade. <em>Fully one-half of it has either been repaired by Nikon under warranty, or gone back immediately to the vendor on purchase due to gross defects.</em><br>

Nikon, Canon and the others have outsourced all quality control to their customers, <strong><em>because they can.</em></strong> Most amateurs cannot tell a badly decentered lens from a good lens. Decentering doesn't show up on pictures of your cat.<br>

Your question could be rephrased: why was Detroit able to foist two decades of crappy cars on the American public? Because they could.<br>

My policy is to buy, test quickly, and return defects aggressively. Every time I return a defective lens to B&H or Adorama, I know that it will be repackaged and resold as new to someone who doesn't know any better. At first, I felt guilty.</p>

 

<p>Because of the common people notion that everything has to be C H E A P! If we would spend more money on more quality equipment, then the quality would be higher all way through. Im going Leica the next time I switch.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now, let us consider quality control theory. The current standard for best practice at the best companies is something known as six sigma, which basically means that the defect rate is approximately one in a million tries. What constitutes a "try" could be open to some interpretation. Does that refer to the individual parts, or to the assembled whole? Nevertheless, based on the not-infrequent reports of lens defects it seems to me that the camera companies today are probably not operating at a six sigma level.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Six sigma and 'defect' rate is only relevent in the context of what the company defines as an acceptable quality, and the level they define as acceptable will be governed largely by the market sector they are aiming for. High volume sales at low price will need lower production standards, lower levels of accetpability and lower rejection rates than a premium brand.</p>

<p>The problem with lenses is that they can only operate in conjunction with a camera. Suppose you have what you define as a 'stellar' lens which means you have a body to which it is (coincidentally) well-matched. You upgrade the body and the lens/body combination suddenly becomes a real dog - which do you blame? My guess is you would automatically blame the body because it is a new component despite the fact that both are within manufaturing acceptability.</p>

 

<p><em>I own more than $30K of Nikon equipment, most of it pro-grade. Fully one-half of it has either been repaired by Nikon under warranty, or gone back immediately to the vendor on purchase due to gross defects.</em></p>

<p>That's just amazing. I've never purchased a Nikon product which had an obvious defect that affected real-world results in any way. And I've spent much more than $30K. I did buy an F5 which has a faint scratch in the metal rails on the film path but it doesn't affect the performance of the camera in any way, and I got it at 20% off the normal price. Could you list examples of specific equipment and what was the "gross defect" that you found in it?</p>

<p><em>Every time I return a defective lens to B&H or Adorama, I know that it will be repackaged and resold as new to someone who doesn't know any better.</em></p>

<p>How do you know that? I would think that re-selling used equipment as new is against the law. If it's not then it's a case of inadequate consumer protection laws in your country. At least around here, you cannot return an item which is not faulty, and if it was not purchased mail-order. If it is mail-order and not faulty, then it needs to be an unopened box. Otherwise they have to discount it and sell it as not new.</p>

<p>If I don't like an item I bought, I will trade it for something else, but I take the usual 30% hit. It's my fault for not doing my research properly and buying something that isn't good enough for my needs, and I accept responsibility for that.</p>

<p>Maybe Canon and Nikon should make the same equipment available at say three different price points. The first as now with their preferred level and cost of quality assurance. The second with a demonstrably more aggressive level of QA meeting "Six Sigma" (or whatever) level of testing at whatever cost/price that requires. Then with no or perfunctory post- manufacture QA at a lower price than now. </p>

<p>It'd be interesting to see what the price differences would be in the context that you'd expect warranty costs to vary inversely to the amount of quality assurance input, and it would be interesting to see what alternative people actually voted for. </p>

<p><em>Most amateurs cannot tell a badly decentered lens from a good lens.</em></p>

<p>If a lens has for example, a soft left 1/3rd of the image, it would show up in real-world use, and most people will notice it. This was the case with my 20mm Nikkor but the problem with that was not quality control, as on film the whole image was sharp; it was the case of a design which was optically incompatible with today's digital cameras. The slight asymmetry was adjusted by Nikon so that it was now both sides which were slightly unsharp, and after a month of almost no use, the lens was back to the its old asymmetry. There was nothing that could be done since the lens was not built robustly enough to hold the alignment so well.</p>

<p>But with lenses that are used with their intended cameras there is rarely a problem. In another thread, you mention a decentered 24/1.4. Now, did you point the lens towards a flat surface, focus and then investigate the whole image ? If you did, this is incorrect use. A lens like this is not flat field and there is no guarantee of the shape of that field. What you need to do is live view manual focus the lens on the exact spot that you will investigate in the image. And then focus on the other side, and take another image. If one side cannot be focused to yield good definition, on a specific spot, and the symmetrically opposite side can be, then you probably have a problem. (And do several repetitions of the manual focus operation since the turn of the ring is so quick.) But if you just focus on one spot and assume the focused plane is a plane, and that you should get sharp detail across the whole image you're making too many assumptions about the design of the lens. Autofocus lenses are designed to be sharp at the point under the selected focus sensor, and there are no guarantees of other places. Also, it happens to be that most Nikkors are optimized for relatively short distances and if you, like Lloyd Chambers seems to like to do, expect it to focus precisely on a subject that is ten meters from the camera or further, without confusing between details that are further behind e.g. the branches you're focused on, again this is a misguided assumption on how the AF system and the lens work. For distant subjects if you want the best results you <strong>must</strong> focus using live view. And field curvature can be very strong at long distances with wide angle Nikkors. Nikon designed the f/1.4 wide angles for typical PJ shooting and they (similarly to the f/2.8 zooms) give best results around something like a distance of 2m to subject. You can get good results at long distances but you need to forsake autofocus and be very careful about how you do the test before coming to conclusions about the optical quality or quality control of the lens. If you just AF on a subject 30m from the camera there is very high chance that the AF will focus on something that you don't intend, and the precision of the system is insufficient at these distances in any case.</p>

<p>In real-world use, in the hands of an experienced operator, the f/1.4 AF-S Nikkor wide angles yield superb results. I just wish Nikon had come out with them a few years earlier.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Every time I return a defective lens to B&H or Adorama, I know that it will be repackaged and resold as new to someone who doesn't know any better."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I find this one of the MOST interesting comments I have read in this forum.<br>

I don’t live in the USA and I have often commented upon the capacity to return an item simply because of change of mind; but this is different.<br>

If I understand correctly this is stating that faulty product is returned to the Retailer and subsequently it is repackaged and resold<strong><em> as a new item as if directly sent from the Manufacturer</em></strong>.<br>

There are two questions I would like answered:<br>

1. How do you, (James), know this is the practice. (Evidence?)<br>

2. Is this practice legal under whatever the USA equivalent is of laws governing “Trade Practices”?</p>

<p>WW </p>

 

<p>B&H and Adorama have to be extremely stupid to repackage defective items as new and sell them again.</p>

<p>Last month I bought a refurbished Nikon zoom lens from B&H. Upon receiving it, I realized that it has some sharpness issues on the long end. Most likely the vibration reduction mechanism is defective since I could see a little motion blur shooting a still subject from a tripod with VR off. I called B&H, and they paid for the return shipping and gave me a full refund. In other words, B&H did not make any money on that order; in fact, they lost money because they paid for return shipping plus all the paperwork and labor for shipping.</p>

<p>Whether it is legal to do so aside, if B&H ships that same lens to someone one, most likely the next customer will discover the same problem and return it. Losing money once on a bad lens is unfortunate. Why would B&H be so dumb to keep losing money on that same lens over and over? Someone so stupid will not stay in business for long.</p>

Here's my take on QC, based on personal experience.

 

 

For many years, my philosophy ranged consistently on the optimistic side, like most posters here, to the point that I never bothered

testing the gear I purchased (mostly second hand).

 

 

Then, one day, I bought a sigma 50/1.4 ef mount, new. Went on a trip without testing it. Looking at the pictures back home, I see

something consistently wrong : a significant number of them are severely back focused. Others are tack sharp. I blame it on my

mistakes. I continue using the lens, with a high percentage of misfocused shots, much higher than with any other lens.

 

 

I finally decide to run a serious test. What I find out is that the lens focuses well at short distances, but vastly backfocuses past 3 or 4

meters. I send it to Sigma France. Comes back with absolutely no change. I call them. They explain that they test focus at a distance

of 1.5 meter, and they found no flaw. I have to describe the issue and offer to send sample files. I send the lens back, they

acknowledge the issue, alledgedly fix it, but when i get the lens back it still backfocuses in the same way. Another call to sigma in

France : they offer to send the lens to Japan. Two months later, the lens is back, and now works properly.

 

 

My conclusion : i should have tested the lens out of the box. Because I began to doubt the lens instead of my skills ten months after

the purchase, the lens had gotten enough use that it could no longer be exchanged (usage marks). Which is why I lost so much time

wth the lens being sent back and forth. A word has to be said for the sigma people, who were very dedicated and helpful.

 

 

From now on, i will test any item i purchase. I've learned my lesson : shit happens !

<blockquote>

<p>Lupo Lobo: As this day moves on I hope that Henry Posner from B&H or the representative from Adorama can shed some light on what actually happens with returned merchandise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Simple -- a defective product is returned to the source from whence it came. Reselling a broken item hoping that customer #2 won't stumble upon the defect which caused customer #1 to send it back is not merely ludicrous; it's retail suicide.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Matt Laur: The internet has a way of purifying, enhancing, and then rapidly breeding ill-conceived, poorly informed, and frequently malicious memes about bad lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems to me the internet has a way of purifying, enhancing, and then rapidly breeding ill-conceived, poorly informed, and frequently malicious memes about plenty of things...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>James Meketa: Every time I return a defective lens to B&H or Adorama, I know that it will be repackaged and resold as new to someone who doesn't know any better.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Far be it form me to speak for Adorama, but as far as B&H is concerned this is a baseless and despicable calumny. James, it's <strong>my personal opinion</strong> that what you think you know and the facts reside in two different time zones.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>William W: How do you, (James), know this is the practice. (Evidence?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't mind reading the answer to this too.</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Why would B&H be so dumb to keep losing money on that same lens over and over? Someone so stupid will not stay in business for long."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Umm: that's what I thought, too.<br>

That's why I asked the two quite specific questions. <br>

Also that's why I think James' definitive assertions are so very interesting.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p>Mr Henry Posner,<br>

Thank you for a speedy and direct response.<br>

I await with much interest, Mr James Meketa's response to my request for evidence, to his previous statements.</p>

<p>WW </p>

 

<p>Lupo / James</p>

<p>I can't speak for all other retailers, but at Adorama, faulty items are returned to the manufacturer or distributor.<br /><br />That doesn't mean that there aren't occasional problems; the manufacturers and distributors, who supply to Adorama, and of course, other retailers, do allow us to return equipment as new, because of over-stocks, exchanges etc. This can be a particular issue after the Christmas holiday when we all need to balance out our inventories.<br /><br />Even if we at Adorama are completely thorough when packaging up these items for return, there is no doubt that less scrupulous retailers could well be receiving returns, trusting the customer's explanation that they never opened the box - packaging them up for return to the manufacturer or distributor. These items then form part of the inventory for sending out to other retailers.<br />No retailer can inspect the contents of every packaged received into the warehouse.<br /><br />If the manufacturer doesn't check the equipment before sending it back out, from the customer's perspective it is the retailer who looks bad, even though it may well have not been their fault.<br>

At Adorama we do have liberal return policies and there is no doubt that on occasion this is taken advantage of - although this does not exempt us from more closely checking any and all returns, there is little doubt that some retailers don't.<br /><br />The problem is that we are all relying upon humans to carry out the required procedures at every point in the transaction, which can, and does, result in mistakes at any place along the line.<br /><br />Helen Oster<br />Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador<br /><br />helen@adorama.com<br>

<a href="http://twitter.com/HelenOster">http://twitter.com/HelenOster</a> </p>

<p>WOW!<br />Word spreads so quickly. I do appreciate that reply Helen, though not addressed directly to me.</p>

<p>WW</p>