Why is Quality Control so low?

<blockquote>

<p>I do not know what quality program Canon has adopted, but whatever it is it is not presently producing a high level of quality if we assume it is allowing a defect rate of several percent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now we are getting back to high/low compared to what? You never did come up a comparably complex and comparably priced consumer product that is significantly better. BTW, it's not just physical parts; assembly steps also add to complexity and defect opportunities. Could quality be higher? Undoubtedly. Would costs be higher? You originally claimed no, but now say it's debatable. Canon cameras/lenses may not be very innovative, but iterative incremental improvement is something they are known for. If there was a simple answer to the cost/quality equation, why would they ignore it?</p>

<p>So Erik, do you think a ~2% defect rate is a good quality record for something you spent ~$1000 to buy?</p>

<p>Speaking as a photographer, rather than my father's proofreader, why would I look at anyone's defect rate rather than whether or not I'm doing a good job as a photographer. Same thing applies to others. In the end, it's about the photographs. Looking at yours...whoops...hard to say. Manufacturer defect rates, whether real, or completely unvalidated like the ones here, aren't relevant to me as photographer or as a judge of other people's capabilities. I don't even know why anyone would anser that question with a yes or no.</p>

<p>Erik,</p>

<p>You asked for statistics on a consumer product of comparable price and complexity with a lower defect rate. Those statistics are hard to come by. However, I have already pointed to air travel, which is probably at least as complex as building a piece of photographic equipment.</p>

<p>If you don't like the air travel example then how about a consumer product that probably is an order of magnitude more complex than a lens and has a 2% defect rate? Consider the Hyandai Sonata automobile.</p>

<p>http://www.fordforums.com/f655/mustang-has-lowest-defect-rate-per-100-cars-all-american-cars-100368/</p>

 

<p>Alan, when you did not answer my previous response I assume you had none. I'll repeat:</p>

<p>Let's ignore it's a service and not product. What aspect of "quality" are you using: Arrive alive? Arrive on time? Arrive on time and satisfied with the service? You will get vastly different quality indices from these 3 different measures. What are the equivalent lens measures: Lens arrives in one piece? Lens performs within factory specifications? Lens performs within user expectations? You will get vastly different quality indices from these 3 different measures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So Erik, do you think a ~2% defect rate is a good quality record for something you spent ~$1000 to buy?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A 2% defect rate means nothing to me unless I get one of the 2%. So far, in the dozen EOS lenses + 3 EOS digital + 4 EOS film bodies I own, I never have (and yes, I've done the picky focus tests). As long as the issue can be solved in reasonable time under warranty or exchange, then it's part of the risk I take to get the item for $1000 from a convenient source.</p>

<p>But then again, I really have no choice. Switching to another brand won't help. I spend as much or more on things that have higher defect rates, e.g. almost all consumer electronics, automobiles, etc.</p>

<p>P.S. I take that back: I did get one of the early 70-300mm IS lenses from the serial number range that was recalled to fix a problem where the lens focus barrel may become loose over time. My lens operated just fine but I sent it back to Canon for warranty repair as a precaution.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>James Meketa , Apr 12, 2011; 12:41 a.m.<br />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>And then:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>James Meketa , Apr 16, 2011; 08:41 p.m.<br />My earlier post (April 12) about returns being recycled was based on what I was told explicitly by the owner of a large, east coast camera store when I asked him what would happen to a brand new, but badly decentered, prime lens I was returning. I assumed from his reply that this practice was standard. I am glad to learn that it may not be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So, on Apr 12th you posted <em>as a fact which you claimed to <strong>"know</strong></em><strong>,"</strong> something it turns out you presumed to be true based on unsubstantiated information you say you received from the owner of another (unnamed) camera store. First, you presume B&H and Adorama do what this other store apparently says they do. You can hardly be certain of this. Second, whoever this unnamed owner (of an unnamed store) is, he or she certainly considers B&H and Adorama his (or her) competitor. That hardly makes him or her someone who'd know what we do and certainly calls into question his or her unbridled objectivity.</p>

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

<p>Interesting thread on DPReview about two "defective" lenses in a row from B&H: <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=38261050">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=38261050</a></p>

<p>The OP there did check serial numbers, and B&H certainly didn't send the same lens to him twice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Interesting thread on DPReview about two "defective" lenses in a row from B&H: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=38261050" target="_blank">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=38261050</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And, as it turns out, neither lens was in any way defective. The OP of that thread simply didn't understand how his lens worked. So, for the first lens we shipped, which was not the least bit defective and was apparently in as-new condition when we got it back, what's an ethical retailer to do with that item?</p>

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

<p>Henry,</p>

<p>I know you won't do it but as far as I am concerned that buyer has cost you money, I would bill him for both lenses, or as an absolute minimum the costs you will incur, as neither was defective, he should pay for his mistake. American retailing is a strange beast though, the cost of manipulative and inexperienced buyers has to be absorbed by everybody, yet very generous return policies are expected almost as a right.</p>

<p>This illustrates my point perfectly, most people who return lenses as defective are actually wrong.</p>

<p>"...most people who return lenses as defective are actually wrong."</p>

<p>Another unsubstantiated opinion stated as if it were a known fact. Maybe the opinion is true, and maybe it isn't, but either way it is no more than an unsubstantiated opinion.</p>

<p>Alan, taken out of context maybe, but I was referring to specific instance where even the returnee admits he was wrong! </p>

<p>You can argue the figures and semantics endlessly, oh you are, but that doesn't change the fact that none of us know a true defective lens figure. One of my points has been that I believe many of the returned lenses that are declared defective and are reported as such, are not, that was shown to be true in this instance.</p>

<p>You argue, constantly, that a possible 2% defect rate is far too high for you. For me it is fine, my life does not depend on the ability of a lens to take a sharp image out of the box, as opposed to a cars brakes, fuel system, steering etc or a planes landing. But cars are very far from reliable and many millions are recalled over direct safety issues, across many manufacturers. Where is your six sigma there?</p>

<p>If I didn't have the ability to return a defective lens (as opposed to abusing a retailers return policy because I am an idiot) then maybe I would demand a better rate, but the manufacturers do stand behind their products and will exchange them if the originals are bad. No harm, no foul. If my plane crashes I won't be so alive, but when did I last have a flight I was content with at the end? </p>

<p>I quote:</p>

<p>**** "<a href="mhtml:{B2D97571-1152-4349-B7EA-35DF3ABF7718}mid:/00000036/!x-usc:http:/photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=18908">Henry Posner</a> <a href="mhtml:{B2D97571-1152-4349-B7EA-35DF3ABF7718}mid:/00000036/!x-usc:http:/photo.net/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="mhtml:{B2D97571-1152-4349-B7EA-35DF3ABF7718}mid:/00000036/!x-usc:http:/photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 22, 2011; 09:50 a.m.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Interesting thread on DPReview about two "defective" lenses in a row from B&H: <a rel="nofollow" href="mhtml:{B2D97571-1152-4349-B7EA-35DF3ABF7718}mid:/00000036/!x-usc:http:/forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=38261050" target="_blank">http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=38261050</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And, as it turns out, neither lens was in any way defective. The OP of that thread simply didn't understand how his lens worked. So, for the first lens we shipped, which was not the least bit defective and was apparently in as-new condition when we got it back, what's an ethical retailer to do with that item?<br />Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video**** " </strong><br /><strong> </strong><br />I presume your question may well be rhetorical. However, as it has been asked I think that there are several things that an ethical retailer can do:</p>

<p>1. Sell the lens as used, class II or demo (whichever fits the situation as to the usual and customary business practices in your particular type of business in addition to acting correctly within the local and state laws) at a reduced price. Yes, you'd take some loss on top of the shipping/packaging/return item costs but sometimes things like that are just the price of doing business.</p>

<p>2. Return to vendor (if your vendor contract allows).</p>

<p>3. See #1 above but have your buyer negotiate with the vendor to eat some or all of the sales price difference between a new lens and the price you'd get selling under the #1 above conditions.</p>

<p>4, 5, 6, etc... are actions that I'm sure you could add to the list having been in that business for some time.</p>

<p>Although the errant customer should offer to offset your loss it is unlikely they will. I think it would be a business mistake for B&H to try to collect monies from him/her. The cost of collection would be more than your net loss on a lens. He/she probably feels pretty sheepish. If I were in your shoes, I'd have a B&H tenured sales type call to ask the customer if everything is OK now. Have the salesperson reassure him/her that these things happen and there are no hard feelings at B&H. I'd think you wouldn't want the customer to be too embarrassed to ever buy from you again. I'd also think you'd want the customer to tell their photo friends (many of whom are leery of dealing with eastern seaboard photo retailers) how nice, ethical and understanding B&H is.</p>

<p><strong> </strong><br /><strong> </strong></p>

<p>Alan, I don't know what quality statistics you are reading (or misreading), but quality in automobiles is typically expressed to as defects per 100 vehicles. Here is a blog from Hyundai in 2009 where they brag that their defect rate is 95 per hundred vehicles well below the industry average of 108. <br>

<a href="http://www.hyundai-blog.com/index.php/2009/06/22/hyundai-quality-improves-jd-power-ranks-hyundai-4th-in-its-2009-initial-quality-study/">http://www.hyundai-blog.com/index.php/2009/06/22/hyundai-quality-improves-jd-power-ranks-hyundai-4th-in-its-2009-initial-quality-study/</a><br>

I strongly suspect that whatever source you are using has a very different measure of quality than the one used by most of the industry.</p>

<p>Erik,</p>

<p>In your last post you asked what quality statistics I was reading with respect to the Hyundai. No need to wonder about the source... all you had to do was follow the link provided in my earlier post and read. However, if you don't want to follow the link, here is a quote from it. Go the the fifth paragraph which starts "The 2004 Hyundai Sonata..." for the part about the defect rate in that model of automobile.</p>

<p>"U.S. Automakers Improve Reliability<br /> 3/7/05<br /> <br /> DETROIT (AP) -- U.S. automakers improved the reliability of their<br /> products last year, but Hyundai Motor Co. and other Asian companies<br /> still make the most trouble-free vehicles, according to a survey<br /> released Monday by Consumer Reports magazine.<br /> <br /> Customers reported an average of 17 problems per 100 vehicles for 2004<br /> models from DaimlerChrysler AG's Chrysler Group, Ford Motor Co. and<br /> General Motors Corp., the magazine said. That was down from 18 problems<br /> per 100 in 2003.<br /> <br /> Japanese and Korean automakers had a rate of 12 problems per 100<br /> vehicles -- unchanged in the magazine's last three surveys. European<br /> automakers, some of whom have battled quality issues in recent years,<br /> had 21 problems per 100 vehicles. That's up from 20 a year ago.<br /> <br /> The survey is part of Consumer Reports' annual <a id="itxthook1" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fordforums.com/">auto</a> issue, scheduled to<br /> hit newsstands Tuesday.<br /> <br /> The 2004 Hyundai Sonata was the most <a id="itxthook2" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fordforums.com/">reliable vehicle</a> in 2004, with two<br /> problems per 100 vehicles. Consumer Reports said the Sonata is "further<br /> establishing Hyundai's <a id="itxthook3" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fordforums.com/">remarkable</a> turnaround from one of the least<br /> <a id="itxthook4" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fordforums.com/">reliable</a> brands to one of the best."<br /> <br /> As an overall brand, Hyundai recorded a reliability rating of 11<br /> problems per 100 vehicles, tying it with Toyota Motor Corp.'s Lexus and<br /> Nissan Motor Co.'s Infiniti nameplates. Subaru was the most reliable<br /> brand in 2004, with an average of eight problems per 100 vehicles.<br /> <br /> Reliability can vary widely within a company. The 2004 Ford Mustang was<br /> the most reliable car made by a U.S. manufacturer, with five problems<br /> per 100 vehicles, the magazine said. But Ford's Lincoln Navigator sport<br /> <a id="itxthook5" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fordforums.com/">utility vehicle</a> tied with the Nissan Quest minivan as the least<br /> reliable, with 49 problems per 100 vehicles.<br /> <br /> Consumer Reports measures reliability by surveying its subscribers. The<br /> magazine collected data on a record 810,000 privately owned or leased<br /> vehicles, 20 percent more than the 675,000 vehicles included in last<br /> year's survey.<br /> <br /> The magazine asked subscribers to report serious problems such as faulty<br /> air conditioning, wind noise, electrical difficulties and transmission<br /> trouble.<br /> <br /> Also Monday, Consumer Reports announced it was no longer recommending<br /> the Ford Focus as a top pick among small cars after the Focus got a poor<br /> rating in side-impact <a id="itxthook6" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fordforums.com/">crash</a> tests performed by the insurance industry.<br /> The Insurance Institute for <a id="itxthook7" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fordforums.com/">Highway</a> Safety released new crash test<br /> results Sunday.<br /> <br /> Ford responded that the Focus got better side-impact ratings from the<br /> federal government, which also performs crash tests. The company said<br /> the Focus also did well in the reliability survey.<br /> <br /> "We recognize how important it is to make sustainable progress in<br /> quality, and we won't be satisfied until we are the best," Ford said in<br /> a statement.<br /> <br /> Consumer Reports also said it would no longer recommend six other<br /> vehicles because of the insurance institute's side-impact crash tests.<br /> Those vehicles are the Honda Element, Mitsubishi Outlander and Suzuki<br /> Grand Vitara <a id="itxthook8" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fordforums.com/">SUVs</a>, the Nissan Altima sedan and two small cars, the<br /> Hyundai Elantra and Mazda 3.<br /> <br /> Consumer Reports buys all the vehicles it tests and doesn't accept<br /> advertising."<br /> <a id="link_1303575828988_55" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.consumerreports.org/" target="_blank"><br /></a></p>

<p>Two thoughts:</p>

<p>1. I don't think I've visited this thread in over a week now, but I just saw that it contains over 160 posts, so I decided to see what the heck might warrant that. Went straight the last post to find that...</p>

<p>... we are now ranting about the reliability of cars!? What the...!</p>

<p>2. Then I looked a bit higher on the page and saw this:<br>

<em>Henry Posner wrote:</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>And, as it turns out, neither lens was in any way defective. The OP of that thread simply didn't understand how his lens worked. So, for the first lens we shipped, which was not the least bit defective and was apparently in as-new condition when we got it back, what's an ethical retailer to do with that item?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a very important observation, and it is in line with quite a bit of what I read in photography forums in general when people start commenting on the quality of equipment and making gross generalizations based on... based on what, actually?</p>

<p>I'm convinced that quite a bit - the majority most likely - of the "facts" about gear offered in forums are really far from facts. The non-facts fall into several interesting categories:</p>

<ul>

<li>Naively and uncritically repeating stuff read or heard somewhere else that passes for "wisdom." There are so many myths and so much silliness passed off as factual that you should take all forum posts (including mine! :-) with a grain of salt. (Disclaimer: Not all posts are nonsense, but be careful out there!)</li>

<li>Buying into hyperventilating complaints about this or that piece of gear. In order to not divert the thread <em>too</em> far, I won't identify the lens, but I often hear that a particular lens is "soft" in a certain type of use. I own the lens and use it a lot and I produce really sharp prints from it in this "type of use" at quite large sizes. In other words the frequently repeated "fact" about this lens is actually utter nonsense. </li>

<li>Not knowing how to use the gear correctly or simply not wanting to bother using it correctly. If I had a nickel for every "my lens isn't sharp" post from someone who made a hand held shot in low light without paying attention to where the AF points were and used a shutter speed that was too low, I could buy some really cool gear! (Or more ink for my printer! ;-) </li>

<li>Related to the above, assuming that "I spent a lot of money on this, so it should make perfect photos" regardless of how I use it. This is sort of like being an inexperienced driver, getting out of a ten-year-old beater Corolla, stepping into the most expensive BMW... and being really upset because I still run into the garbage cans when I back up without looking. (If I also had a nickel for each of these, I'd be verging on wealthy.)</li>

<li>Obsessing about imaginary "perfection" in photographic equipment. We all know the type - this person isn't really interested in <em>photography</em> (much less in <em>photographs</em>) as much as in the quest to possess objects of technical perfection. Such people almost invariably expend inordinate effort searching for the tiniest and least significant marginal differences - differences that are completely inconsequential in these things called <em>photographs</em> that we hope they someday discover - and instead send back equipment because when they stare at their screens at 100% magnification long enough and flip obsessively and repeatedly between two samples of something they think they can, if the look really closely, maybe detect that the two are not perfectly identical and that, therefore, one must be good and the other "not good."</li>

</ul>

<p>In some ways it must be crazy selling camera gear to us.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Dan,</p>

<p>The reason cars were brought into the discussion is because Erik Magnuson requested information on the defect rate of other products besides lenses.</p>

<p>Alan, a link with a selected quote would have been good enough rather than posting the whole article. However, this goes back to the point I tried to make when you brought up air travel: <em>what exactly is a defect</em>? Different definitions will give different defect rates. For example, is a single car with multiple problems one defect or many? The strict definition used by the industry shows a much higher defect rate than self reported incidents in a magazine survey. </p>

<p>Also you are forgetting one big difference: dealer preparation. A car dealer is supposed to carefully inspect each car before it is sold and fix any factory defects. They usually add a few hundred to a few thousand dollars to the sticker for this inspection. I'm sure you can find a camera dealer who would be willing to provide the same service for a similar price (i.e. selling you the lens at list price instead of MAP.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...most people who return lenses as defective are actually wrong."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe "most" was hyperbolic but I linked to a customer who got two lenses from us and only after the second exhibited the same "defective" behavior did he bother to ask whereupon he learned neither was defective at all. It happens too frequently.</p>

<p>An anecdote from the film era. A customer emailed me while returning the third "defective" Nikon FM3a body. He was upgrading from a simpler consumer Nikon slr. On that camera, opening the film back meant simply lifting the rewind knob. On the new FM3a, like the FM and FE series (and several other pro-oriented Nikon cameras) you had to actuate a small lever before lifting the rewind knob. He didn't know this and didn't bother to read the manual, so we shipped and got back three perfectly perfect cameras.</p>

<p>Maybe saying <em>"...most people who return lenses as defective are actually wrong,"</em> is an exaggeration but I'd stand by saying "...too many people who return lenses as defective are actually wrong."</p>

<p>YMMV</p>

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

<p>Henry,</p>

<p>Only you know the figures, but if your return rate for lenses across Canon, NIkon, Sigma and Zeiss is more than 2% I'd be thinking all of the extras are not defective. If you are getting 4% then 50% of the returns are probably unjustified, if the figure is anything like the 8% hypothesised earlier in the thread then 75% are probably wrong.</p>

<p>I'd love the savings of not having to absorb the overly generous return policy to be carried over to purchasers who know about rewind knobs and macro dof notifications :-)</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

<p>P.S. Is that really cool stainless steel diner still across the street from you?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>P.S. Is that really cool stainless steel diner still across the street from you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The very nice Skylight Diner's on the south-west corner of W34th St & 9th Ave. The roach-trap a block south on W33rd St & 9th Av has been deservedly demolished.</p>

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

<p>It's been a few years since anyone has posted on this thread. While the thread was more active someone asked for examples where six sigma quality had been achieved. Well the organization where I work has recently achieved six sigma performance in an important measure of quality for one aspect of its operation, namely mislabeled or lost units. This is an operation that handles tens of thousands of units per day received from hundreds of different sources each day.</p>

<p>Also, it can safely be said that the overall defect rate per completed unit is WELL under one per thousand units. I can't give you more specific information on that figure because it could be considered business sensitive information, but it is very likely that competitive organizations have roughly comparable defect rates to ours. Otherwise their businesses are likely at risk.</p>