I have been hearing reports of Pentax users buying new lenses and finding dust particles inside. Also, I've heard for the last two years, reports of lens performance inconsistancies among users. The 105mm being the most commonly referred to lens in this category. I believe that both of these issues need to be addressed by Pentax, especially after my tour of the Leica facility in Germany. Leica seems to realize the importance of attention to detail in areas like lens barrel machining, elimination of dust during assembly, consistancy of fit of lens to camera body, lens element centering, hand built craftmanship and great designs. It is my opinion that Pentax made better lenses for the 67 when it was made in smaller numbers, before today's current MF craze. I have noticed that my lenses which were made in several different years, fit the camera differently. This should not happen. Mass production of the 67 has caused problems in Pentax's ability to assure quality. Lessons can be learned from Leica. Attention to detail and 100% testing pay off in happier customers. SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), November 28, 1999

Answers

Concerning the quality VS price issue; I believe that Pentax could improve the quality of its lenses without increasing price. There have been several quality gurus(including Dr. Deming) that have proven that quality does not add cost to production. The reason is that with better quality(process control) you have less rework, repair, scrap and warrantee returns. All of these are very expensive and are considered waste. The near elimination of all these things will have payed for better process controls. It is my opinion that Pentax could make Leica-quality lenses at their present price. SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), November 29, 1999.

Dan: Concerning your idea of using a 645n with 165 f/2.8 for better sharpness; it is true that this will yield better images but the difference on this type of lens(Double Gauss)is quite small. The Double Gauss type is famous for its off axis sharpness. You would probably not notice the difference between using the 165 on a 67 and 645. SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), December 04, 1999.

But then, if Pentax did as Leica does, wouldn't Pentax have to charge Leica prices?

I'll probably buy a 67II system this week, for hand held action shots! If I bought a Leica it would cost more money!

As far as QC goes, it seems like other camera makers have rushed recent models lately, e.g., the Nikon F100 and it's various problems, ro the early EOS 3 and the exposure mis-programming. I'm just hoping my new 67II works as advertised.

-dan

-- dan (strawberry9@worldnet.att.net), November 29, 1999.

Dan, the P67II (at least mine) does work as advertised. But Steve is right. My lenses (200mm, 90mm and 45mm) do have very fine dust particles (or I should say 1 particle visible, perhaps in not all the lenses) which is enough to disturb you if you're investing your money in them. With all the competition and modern manufacturing techniques it's unacceptable to have lenses which don't fit the mount or with dust particles in the lens elements. Pentax is a very weird company in that it doesn't pay too much attention to customer feedback, as far as I can tell.

-- Marcelo P. Lima (mpl4@cornell.edu), November 29, 1999.

What quality problems has the P67II had?

-- Patrik Bjorklund (patbj@itn.liu.se), November 29, 1999.

Another experience with Pentax quality control: When I received my first 90mm lens I discovered a small piece of dirt inside the front lens. Using a magnifier this piece turned out to be a part of a fly! The lens was replaced immediately by Pentax, of course. Fortunately, this was a unique experience. My other equipment (including a 67II) arrived in perfect condition and works flawlessly.

-- Joachim Inkmann (Joachim.Inkmann@uni-konstanz.de), November 29, 1999.

Hmmm, if Deming was right wouldn't Leicas cost less?

Well, I know what the partial answer is: Leitz/Leica is going for the boutique crowd, while Pentax is selling to the masses.

You guys have me scared wrt lens problems! I was planning on ordering from Caymen Camera, but if products out of the boxes need to be returned until a good one shows up then I'm afraid that the mail costs will overcome the off shore price advantage!

Also, slightly off topic, the thought occured to me that I should buy the 645n and the lens adapter (to use the 165 f/2.8 and 105 f/2.4 lenses I want) and the 67 lenses, rather than the 67II body. Yes, I know that the format is different and that should be the deciding factor, but I have use for a motor drive.

What is motivating me towards medium format (well, into an SLR MF, since I have a rolleiflex) is that my 35mm negs are too grainy at 8x10 and definitely so at 11x14. I shoot handheld action, existing light, indoors, and the *slowest* film I use is 800 speed! I'm thinking one advantage of using the 645n is that at f/2.8 I'll only be using the central (and hopefully sharpest) part of the 165mm lens coverage!

Any thoughts?

-- dan (strawberry9@worldnet.att.net), November 30, 1999.