Why is Quality Control so low?

<p>Why do we spend thousands of dollars on photography equipment and put up with low quality control?<br>

Look at lens reviews, even the ones done by DXO labs, claims to find bad copies of lens. When I look at customer reviews of lens, it is not uncommon to read that a person has mailed back one or two lens to find on that works.<br>

Digital cameras now have micro adjustments to have the camera owner makes adjustments to lens that are not calibrated correctly.<br>

If I buy a lens for a Nikon or Canon camera I would think that this new lens it is going to work fine out of the box.<br>

Anyone else upset with buying a lens and hoping it is a "good" copy. And what happens to the "bad" copies that go back? Are they resold to the next customer?</p>

<p>Ah dunno about you, but I've noted a gradual increase in optical quality during the past 40 years of shooting. Nothing is perfect but my 13 x 19 (on Epson) and 24 x 36 (lab) prints have never looked cleaner or sharper from small format cameras like the 5D2 and 7D. My old Nikon gear from the 60s and 70s was decent but not in the same league as my L optics (still have some of those ancient AI Nikkors).</p>

<p>Sure there are a few lemons out there but most QC problem are in reality due to poor photographic skill and even worse testing methodology. These fools henceforth blow BS out their arses on forums, making it seem like a bigger problem than it actually is.</p>

<p>Although I have MA on my 5D2 and 7D, none of my 20 or so lenses need adjustment so I returned it to defaults after monkeying with it for a couple weeks. </p>

<p>Because a very small percentage of the people with fine working tools will post that their stuff works.</p>

<p>It's the ones with the bad copies that complain.</p>

<p>This is an effect of the "global village" in which we live.</p>

<p>I have never had a quality issue with any Nikon equipment, but I have from Sigma. I should imagine the QC of Nikon's consumer equipment would not be as rigorous as their pro equipment, as a necessity to keep prices low (relatively), but I hear of very few issues. I would expect Canon's QC to be of an equally high standard, especially for items costing thousands of dollars, as you put it.</p>

<p>I completely agree with the replies above.</p>

<p>BTW, I came here from your Nikon thread, which has been closed, and members redirected here.</p>

<p>I have not knowingly had a problem with my lenses yet. In fact, it has created a paranoia that I am not good enough to realise they are poor copies.</p>

<p>I am convinced that most reports of poor copies are due to either user error or pixel peeping to levels that are nearly irrelevant in the real world. Any manufactured product has a range of quality output where 'stellar' is as much a freak as 'substandard' and one 'disdvantage' of the internet is that it can create unrealistic expectations - someone posts about a stellar copy of a lens bt everyone automatically assumes they should <em>all</em> get that copy.</p>

<p>I was not a forum poster until 2006 but did people complain in such volume during the days of 35mm film - I suspect not and surely the manufacturing quality has improd over that time?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was not a forum poster until 2006 but did people complain in such volume during the days of 35mm film - I suspect not and surely the manufacturing quality has improd over that time?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Optical design and manufacturing are very mature but have been slowly evolving for generations. I dare say there is little significant difference from 2006 to 2011. Toss in a couple decades and you'll see significant gains in design. Realize some of the finest optical designs from the 80s and earlier still hold their own against our latest and greatest. The EF 200 1.8L and 300 2.8L come to mind...</p>

<p>During the film era most folks printed 4x6 and were happy. A few hardcore made large prints, projected for viewed with loupes on light tables. Today any fool can zoom to pixel level and beyond, quickly crying wolf when their one-handed stab technique yields mush.</p>

<p>If you think the QC is low, just take a moment to read the repair manual for the Nikon 105mm VR macro lens (and I'm sure the equivalent Canon lenses). Adjustments are made in the reassembly of the lens that are really incredibly precise (and calibrating the VR looks like a real task). In fact roughly 30% of the repair manual is disassembly/reassembly, and all the rest is quality control and adjustment guidance.</p>

<p>Ted, your question would make more sense if worded, "Why do we spend thousands of dollars on photography equipment and put up with poor images from not learning to use it correctly?"</p>

<p>After too many bodies, and even more lenses, I can't say quality control has ever been an issue for me. I'm like Mike Hitchen, maybe one day I'll be good enough to recognize my bodies and lenses aren't up to snuff. </p>

<p>like girl friends I try to make the lens work with what I get, I guess I ain't to picky, or just lucky, at least with lens as girl friends tend to come with more problems so they get sent back, still have not had to do that with a lens, two cameras yes</p>

<p>I have said it before and I will say it again: For optimum performance a lens need to be calibrated to your body (especially telephoto lenses). If it is not properly adjusted, you may have issues with sharpness and/or AF accuracy.</p>

<p>Then again, AF accuracy is not that perfect as we want it to, especially on non-highest end bodies. Lots of practice will give you the experience to overcome the drawbacks of the AF system most of time -- so always refocus and shoot twice. Lenses with consistent focus errors are very rare and usually linked to third-party manufacturers like Sigma.</p>

<p>I myself have owned lots of Canon EF lenses -- all bought on the fickle used market -- and have never had a "bad copy". If you feel insecure, bring your lens and body to the Canon repair service and have them properly calibrated to each other. I considers this necessary maintenance and not a quality issue, because there <em>are</em> differences in the high-end and low end bodies that can have an impact.</p>

<p>let's assume for a second that Canon (and Nikon) make millions of lenses each year...not a bad assumption. Of those say 1% are defective or have issues. That would be 10,000 bad lenses per year. </p>

<p>Some of those will be returned - where they will be refurbished and resold. Some returned and trashed - and others not returned at all - just held on to and suffered with and gripped about on PNet and other forums. And because Pnet and others don't verify identity - that person could have 50 accounts here - and complain / agree 50 times. </p>

<p>Most of us - if we get a lemon out of the box - will return it promptly. Others will try to sell it on Flea - Bay or somewhere similar. Then the "bad" lens is passed on to others and they complain too... </p>

<p>Of course there always is that other category - the folks that buy something and think it is going to solve all the world's problems - and that you will be able to take a photo like is shown the ads every time - without really trying.... That group won't be happy with anything. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's the ones with the bad copies that complain.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />There's the problem. You don't want to be using copies, get an original!</p>

<p>Cameras and lenses of today are far more complex than the ones we grew up with. There are many shooters that never used film and manual lenses. They expect a 300mm AF lens to work like a P&S and they whine when it doesn't.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>When I look at customer reviews of lens, it is not uncommon to read that a person has mailed back one or two lens to find on that works.</em><br>

<em><br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>High end professionals have long had a practice of regularly try several lenses of the same mode lens before picking the best of them. This process long predates autofocus or digital photographic technology and for that matter the internet. Cinematographers do it too. The earliest example I have heard of this practice is W. Eugene Smith doing this back in the 1950s.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Digital cameras now have micro adjustments to have the camera owner makes adjustments to lens that are not calibrated correctly.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The function of micro AF adjustment is to fine tune individual lens and individual body AF performance to each other, to fine tune and specific system, not to correct for lenses that are not calibrated correctly. </p>

<p>Your screed leaves out the possibility that user error is a factor, which I suspect is is a factor in 90% of the cases when someone says they bought "a bad lens". </p>

<p>Most of the "faults" are user error. DXO couldn't make a meaningful test of tissue paper if they had a cold.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/">Read this</a> to understand why so many people think they have a "bad" lens.</p>

<p>The question is based on a series of false premises. Posting it twice makes it no better.</p>

<p>Quality control has generally improved, not deteriorated. Unfortunately the ability of some people to learn how to use complex machinery has NOT improved, and is unlikely ever to do so.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The internet has a way of purifying, enhancing, and then rapidly breeding ill-conceived, poorly informed, and frequently malicious memes about bad lenses. It's like a petri dish made especially to support the growth of threads, comments, tweets and blogs that include the food-like phrase "bad sample" and which do <em>not</em> include the powerful antibiotic phrases "rigor," "method," "experience," or "used a tripod" in the same paragraphs.<br /><br />There has never been a better time to buy photographic equipment of any type. <br /><br />Also, Ellis gets the gold star for correctly using today's secret word: "Screed"</p>

<p>I have used probably over 50 F mount lenses on my Nikons (by Nikon and Zeiss) and never have I run into a "bad copy". I think that's very telling. I'm very demanding on my lenses. Bad copies of good lenses are very rare.</p>

<p>I don't think that your perception of low quality control is really accurate. I agree with those who have already pointed out that the original post is based on a series of false premises.</p>

<p>One of the problems with the increasing ability to post immediately about anything and everything and then read what everyone else has written in this manner is that certain false <em>memes</em> gain traction and appear to be more real than they actually are. In reality, the quality control on modern photographic products is excellent, as good or much better than it has ever been. And the products themselves are better and more powerful as well.</p>

<p>Yet people, whether or not they are actually qualified to do so, can look closely at some 100% magnification crops on their computers and claim that product X is out of focus or distorted or whatever. First of all, quite a few of these claims attribute the perceived "flaw" to the wrong thing. To offer one example, we periodically read that "previous model X with 12MP produced sharper images that new model Y with 21MP"... when someone looks at both at 100% and fails to notice the obvious fact that he/she is looking much more closely at a smaller area of the frame in the second case. Or someone inspects the same way and complains about "excessive CA," when a) CA has always been present in similar lenses, b) it is probably better today, c) it is not going to be visible in real world photographic images, and d) it is easily corrected in post. There are many, many more examples of this.</p>

<p>Even when we know that these sorts of claims are misguided and/or just plain wrong, they gain traction on the net. People, especially some who want to find a conspiracy behind every human endeavor, load these false extrapolations up with the baggage of "someone is trying to pull a fast one on us" or "these companies are cutting corners" and so forth. And the natural instinct to look for explanations that involve unethical behavior by others kicks in... and we get claims like the one that started this thread.</p>

<p>Finally, for some reason photography seems to attract, among its many adherents, a certain crowd that looks for a mystical technical perfection to provide satisfaction. In some cases it seems that <em>photographs</em> are not really all that important, and that even tools of photography are only important to the extent that they satisfy this desire for technical perfection. I have some news. <em>Photography is about photographs, not about equipment</em>. No technology is perfect. Brilliant photography has been and will continue to be produced with the gear that exists.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>“Why is Quality Control so low?”</p>

<p>I cannot speak for all industries but the quality control programs I have witnessed in the photographic, automotive, electronic, and food industries are excellent. How did you arrive at your conclusion?</p>

<p>I've probably bought (and sold...) more Canon EOS gear then the average Canon user. I've never gotten a lens or camera that was defective out of the box. I've had one or two lenses that needed minor repair after a few years of use, but that's pretty much to be expected. Their QC seems pretty good based on my experience.</p>

<p>In cases where quality control <em>is</em> low, the reason is cost. If consumers demand the absolute lowest rock bottom price on gear, one way to lower production cost is to cut back on quality control. Instead of testing every camara or lens, you test 1 out of every 10 or 1 out of every 100 and instead of testing every function for perfection, you test a few functions for "within spec".</p>

<p> </p>

<p>One bad apple on the tree does not constitute the need for a chainsaw. Just pick another one.</p>

<p><a name="00YXxN"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5351321">Ted Holm</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Apr 11, 2011; 02:54 a.m.</p>

<p>said...</p>

<p>Why do we spend thousands of dollars on photography equipment and put up with low quality control?<br />Look at lens reviews, even the ones done by DXO labs, claims to find bad copies of lens. When I look at customer reviews of lens, it is not uncommon to read that a person has mailed back one or two lens to find on that works.</p>

<p>but,<br /><a name="00YXxa"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=166736">Puppy Face</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Apr 11, 2011; 03:19 a.m.</p>

<p>said...</p>

<p>Ah dunno about you, but I've noted a gradual increase in optical quality during the past 40 years of shooting.</p>

<p>*******************************************************************</p>

<p>I think both statements have merit. The causes of a perception of low quality could be from:</p>

<p>1. More product. If a name brand lens is going to have a dud at the ratio of 1:1000 and they sell 10,000 lenses they are going to have 10 problem lenses. If they sell 1,000,000 lenses they are going to have 1000 problems.</p>

<p>2. As workforces mature, less emphasis is put on "doing it right". Look what happened to Detroit automobiles years ago, talk about low quality! And to think that their fathers used to make Duesenbergs and Packards. Japan's workforce culture has matured and the same type of social changes are happening. Have you read Consumer Reports for over 50 years? First the American Cadillac had the best repair record (even though the somewhat socialist Consumer Reports didn't seem to like the idea of folks owning Cadillacs). Some years later it was the German Volkswagen and Mercedes. In a later time period it became Japan's Honda, Toyota and Datsun. Now the Korean Hyundai is getting high marks. That is a good example of changing workplace ethics and customs.</p>

<p>3. Corporate Directors elected by fund managers have no incentive to build a company's reputation for the long term. Their fund bosses just trade stocks in and out, They only want a good financial quarter, this quarter. Shit rolls down hill. The worker and his supervisor know well what the current crop of temporary masters want. Only those with enough protective seniority can put in the effort to make a good product and... only if they want to.</p>

<p>The perception that lenses are better may be partially due to:</p>

<p>1. Advanced science over the last 100 years.</p>

<p>2. Computer controlled grinding which makes the batch to batch differences smaller.</p>

<p>3. The use of electronics for the controls which can have tighter specs.</p>

<p>4. Better materials.</p>

<p>Yes, I think there is merit on both sides of the argument.</p>

<p> </p>

>>> Why is Quality Control so low?

 

That hasn't been my experience.

<p><strong>I stand corrected</strong>. I respect each one of the people the folks that have taken time to share their opinions.<br>

Many people have taken up the art of photography and find that today’s equipment can be overwhelming.<br>

I have been using a Nikon lens and am in the market for a Canon camera. I have been looking for a wide-angle lens, reading reviews on several lenses. Then I read a review on the Tokin 14-28 FX pro lens. I was shocked to say the least.<br>

Back when I was shooting film, we didn’t need to “fix” our photos in Photoshop or lightroom. 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. Today we seem to shoot a lot more photos hoping that a few are winners.<br>

So I am waving the white flag, thank you for all your input.<br>

Happy shooting to everyone.</p>