on 11/15/01 9:25 PM, k.matsumoto at matsumoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:
>> Japanese quality? No question it could be one of the best in
>> theworld.
>
> Many of we Japanese still believe that the Germans make better
> products. True or not, we want to believe that way <g>.
>
> As I read in a photo magazine recently, a journalist found some
> *ikon lenses and *eica lenses made in the same factory (of maybe
> *amron or *igma) at around Nagano, Japan. This guy says one reason
> the *eica lenses are more expensive is because they have a stricter
> quality standard and trash more "out of standard" elements.
>
> I don't know if this is true, but at least this guy says he was
> awakened from his dream and stopped lusting after *eica lenses (for
> a few days).
>
> kazuya matsumoto
Like all manufactured products, there are tolerances for each part.
Sometimes the tolerances offset each other, other times the tolerances add
to each other. So the finished item can be either near perfect or nearly a
reject, and still meet the official standard of the new product.
In the hot-rodding cars world, there is a procedure called 'blueprinting' an
engine. The process involves carefully measuring all the parts and
assembling so the tolerances are all very tight, a 'best case' assembly.
This can result in a 'stock' engine that produces 20-25% more power than a
common engine, without having *any* non-standard parts. Auto companies used
to be accused of providing engines and whole cars built this way to the
magazines for road tests.
If you built every production piece as if you were 'blueprinting', then the
time to build the product (and the cost of the product) would have to be
much higher... probably why Leica products cost as much as they do. Leica
may use a much higher standard for the minimum. Would most users notice the
difference? Perhaps not, which is why many are happy to pay less.
This variance may account for some of the differences we have reported in
our Zuiko lens results. One person has a 28/2.0 (for instance) which is at
the lesser end of the acceptable range, while another's 28/2.0 is at the
near-optimum end of the standard's range. The differences may be noticable
if you are really looking for it, and have the two pieces to compare.
Olympus may test both pieces and sell them both because both will pass the
minimum standard, although one piece *barely* passes and the other could
pass a standard twice as difficult. Unfortunately you cannot know in advance
which piece you will be buying, and you have no recourse so long as it
passes the minimum standard set by Olympus...
Note that this effect is different that design changes, like the performance
difference of early to MIJ 50/1.8 lenses. But as a group, there are better
and worse MIJ 50/1/8's that *all* meet the standard set.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|