Would you pay extra for ultimate QC?

clarnibass wrote:

A bit of background. Not exactly cameras, but one of my jobs is repairing musical instruments. Some people come to me and pay for repairs even when they still have a warranty from the store they bought it from. I also used to sell instruments and did some warranty work on instruments I sold. I wasn't strict and did free "warranty" repairs even if the wwaranty expired recently or the problem was the owner's fault, just to be nice. I stopped selling instruments mainly because I wasn't happy with the QC standards of the instruments getting to me. It is different from cameras in some ways, but I realized that anyone selling instruments like these had to go over each one before sale or sell as is and to me that was almost unethical...

So...

If two companies sold more or less the same product, one is known for QC problems and one known for reliability, then I would pay more for the latter. If I could check the product from the former before buying in a way to make sure the particular one I'm buying is not problematic in any way, then I'd definitely consider it.

But, any products that I buy I expect QC to be excellent. Well ok, if I buy a really cheap knock off of something then yeah, I might agree to buy it if it's not great. But for (e.g.) any $2,000 camera, I expect QC to be very good. It was their decision to sell it at that price, that's fine. Decide the price you want, but make the product good. In general, if it is impossible for a company to make a product with no significant QC problems at a price they can sell it, then IMO they shouldn't make it, or accept a lower profit.