Are de-kitted lenses more prone to sample variation?

assaft wrote:

Wasabi Bob wrote:

Yes, I do ... I've seen the manufacturing process from start to finish.

1. The final testing is automated - you don't have humans deciding what is "good" or "bad". Unless you can assign human qualities to an automated testing apparatus, I'd say that they've removed the human variable from the manufacturing process. It's automated to the extent that you typically have only 1 - 2 persons in charge of the entire line.

2. As with any product, there are mechanical (and other) tolerances. Granted, the design tolerances will be higher on more expensive lens but the variation is not going to be that great so as to deem a lens unacceptable. Any lens that does not pass the test is ejected off the line.

3. As some one else stated (which I totally agree with) much of the negative comments are the result of the customer's expectations. Whether a lens has a metal or plastic mount, has no bearing in the optical quality. With Panasonic's lens the mount it is largely decided by the target weight of the final product.

A "kit" lens is often a middle of the road (in terms of specs) lens that they've decided to produce in much larger quantities so the cost decreases. Cheaper is not necessarily lesser quality. A good example is their 12-32 lens. It's small, relatively inexpensive and quite sharp. It's not the fastest lens in terms of aperture, but it serves most people very nicely as a starter lens.

I'm not doubting what you've seen or being told in the Panasonic's factory that you say you visited. But I think it isn't enough to explain the situation.

For example, there was a peak in the number of reports on problems with lenses from the first batch of the P 42.5/f1.7, which were sold for 100$. I don't see a good reason to attribute all of that to packaging and shipment. Probably there's nothing unique to the way this batch of this particular lens is packaged or shipped compared to other batches/lenses. In addition, if what you say - about the manufacturing and testing process being completely automatic - is correct, I don't understand how so many problems weren't caught in the factory. It's a failure of two separate components (the assembling one and the testing one).

In addition, you say that there is a certain degree of tolerance for imperfection but you've been told that it is fairly low and should be a non-issue in practice. I'm not sure about that. We can't really know what their degree of tolerance is and whether it is indeed as low as they make it sound. During the last few years I've seen several posts by users who clearly demonstrated de-centered lenses but when their lenses were sent to Panasonic for repair under warranty they got an answer that the lens performance is within the vendor normal range. Note that only a small number of users actually take the trouble to test their lenses so the presence of such reports is likely to indicate a problem of a wider scope.

By the way, I don't want my posts in this thread to sound as if Panasonic is the only vendor with such problems. It is no secret that sample variation is common in lenses from almost all manufacturers.

Pikme wrote:

Wasabi Bob wrote:

I really fail to see the humor in your response. So much of the info shared in such discussion begins as someones "opinion". It magically becomes fact and people start forming conclusions on assumptions. I've been to where the lens are manufactured and have a close working relation with their service network, globally. I'm not pulling rabbits out of a hat when I made those statements.

There is no value to the ridiculous theory that a well known company, in this case the largest manufacturer of aspherical lens in the world, intentionally sells inferior copies of a lens. People who are new to digital photography look to these forums for guidance. Any info should be factual and accurate.

Pikme wrote:

Wasabi Bob wrote:

Assaft

I've had some professional interaction with Panasonic as well as having the opportunity to visit their facilities in Japan. There is no such thing as a "bad copy" of a lens. When the lens leaves the factory, all are equal. The assembly is all automated, so they've removed the human factor which could introduce variations. If you see any difference, it's likely due to shipping related damage. When I see such comments, it almost sounds like some people believe that they are running some sort of lens counterfeiting operation.

Are you interested in ocean front property for sale in Arizona? I can get you a real bargain!

Sorry you didn't like my humor, but you are either incredibly naive or blinded from reality for some other reason. I'm not knocking Panasonic, although I am disappointed in the obvious lessening of QA for both Panasonic and Olympus since the switch from 4/3 to m4/3. Still, I don't believe either company is any worse than other camera company today.

It is just not possible (and is itself humorous to state) to remove all variability and human factor from any type of manufacturing. Besides, camera companies also buy parts, lens housings, optical components, contract manufactured complete lenses, etc. That is particularly true for cheaper or kit lenses, which are often contracted from third party manufacturers, including sometimes the entire design and development of the lens.

Do you really believe there is no variability or human factor involved in the manufacture of the 100-400 lens? Or that Panasonic spends as much time and effort assuring acceptable quality for every copy of the 12-32 lens as they do the 100-400 lens?

The 42.5 f1.7 or the 25mm? I don't remember complaints about the former...

Anyway, if they really told Wasabi that they meticulously test every lens off the line for decentering, then they were just straight up blowing smoke up his... Or their test only checks for the kind of decentering that would happen if you take a hammer to the lens.

Wasabi Bob wrote:

Impulses wrote:

I can respect your opinion that is based on your assumptions. My comments were based on having visited the facility on more than one occasion. Years ago you had hundreds of workers manning such facilities. Today the production teams are just a few people that basically monitor the quality data. From start to finish, few, if any human hands touch the product. The manufacturing consistency far exceeds what a "human production line" can produce. One of the tests subject the lens to drop tests to measure the specification deviation.

That's a load... Machines aren't perfect, there are always tolerances within the manufacturing process even when it's automated. Not that shipping couldn't exacerbate things, but there are most definitely bad samples coming off the line. They've just decided it's within their acceptable losses and you can bet they've done the math on returns etc.

No assumptions, just evidence of decentered lenses from every manufacturer left and right along with bad warranty service that doesn't even test them properly before sending em back, it's widely documented.

I can't respect that you bought the line of b.s. they fed you at your factory tour, sorry... Just because machines are involved doesn't mean the lenses are indistinguishable from each other or that there aren't some that are visibly worse.

Machines aren't perfect, even high end silicon (sensors, CPU, etc) can often have pretty low yields and the tolerances there are way smaller than with something mechanical like a lens. In fact because the tolerances are wider and because most people don't test their gear is that they can get away with sloppier QC.

I love me some Panasonic btw, I own 4 Panasonic lenses and I've bought 7 (rest were gifts, 9 if you count kit lenses sold or not in use)... But I'm also not oblivious to reality or about to shift all blame to the UPS man.

Impulses wrote:

assaft wrote:

Wasabi Bob wrote:

Yes, I do ... I've seen the manufacturing process from start to finish.

1. The final testing is automated - you don't have humans deciding what is "good" or "bad". Unless you can assign human qualities to an automated testing apparatus, I'd say that they've removed the human variable from the manufacturing process. It's automated to the extent that you typically have only 1 - 2 persons in charge of the entire line.

2. As with any product, there are mechanical (and other) tolerances. Granted, the design tolerances will be higher on more expensive lens but the variation is not going to be that great so as to deem a lens unacceptable. Any lens that does not pass the test is ejected off the line.

3. As some one else stated (which I totally agree with) much of the negative comments are the result of the customer's expectations. Whether a lens has a metal or plastic mount, has no bearing in the optical quality. With Panasonic's lens the mount it is largely decided by the target weight of the final product.

A "kit" lens is often a middle of the road (in terms of specs) lens that they've decided to produce in much larger quantities so the cost decreases. Cheaper is not necessarily lesser quality. A good example is their 12-32 lens. It's small, relatively inexpensive and quite sharp. It's not the fastest lens in terms of aperture, but it serves most people very nicely as a starter lens.

I'm not doubting what you've seen or being told in the Panasonic's factory that you say you visited. But I think it isn't enough to explain the situation.

For example, there was a peak in the number of reports on problems with lenses from the first batch of the P 42.5/f1.7, which were sold for 100$. I don't see a good reason to attribute all of that to packaging and shipment. Probably there's nothing unique to the way this batch of this particular lens is packaged or shipped compared to other batches/lenses. In addition, if what you say - about the manufacturing and testing process being completely automatic - is correct, I don't understand how so many problems weren't caught in the factory. It's a failure of two separate components (the assembling one and the testing one).

In addition, you say that there is a certain degree of tolerance for imperfection but you've been told that it is fairly low and should be a non-issue in practice. I'm not sure about that. We can't really know what their degree of tolerance is and whether it is indeed as low as they make it sound. During the last few years I've seen several posts by users who clearly demonstrated de-centered lenses but when their lenses were sent to Panasonic for repair under warranty they got an answer that the lens performance is within the vendor normal range. Note that only a small number of users actually take the trouble to test their lenses so the presence of such reports is likely to indicate a problem of a wider scope.

By the way, I don't want my posts in this thread to sound as if Panasonic is the only vendor with such problems. It is no secret that sample variation is common in lenses from almost all manufacturers.

Pikme wrote:

Wasabi Bob wrote:

I really fail to see the humor in your response. So much of the info shared in such discussion begins as someones "opinion". It magically becomes fact and people start forming conclusions on assumptions. I've been to where the lens are manufactured and have a close working relation with their service network, globally. I'm not pulling rabbits out of a hat when I made those statements.

There is no value to the ridiculous theory that a well known company, in this case the largest manufacturer of aspherical lens in the world, intentionally sells inferior copies of a lens. People who are new to digital photography look to these forums for guidance. Any info should be factual and accurate.

Pikme wrote:

Wasabi Bob wrote:

Assaft

I've had some professional interaction with Panasonic as well as having the opportunity to visit their facilities in Japan. There is no such thing as a "bad copy" of a lens. When the lens leaves the factory, all are equal. The assembly is all automated, so they've removed the human factor which could introduce variations. If you see any difference, it's likely due to shipping related damage. When I see such comments, it almost sounds like some people believe that they are running some sort of lens counterfeiting operation.

Are you interested in ocean front property for sale in Arizona? I can get you a real bargain!

Sorry you didn't like my humor, but you are either incredibly naive or blinded from reality for some other reason. I'm not knocking Panasonic, although I am disappointed in the obvious lessening of QA for both Panasonic and Olympus since the switch from 4/3 to m4/3. Still, I don't believe either company is any worse than other camera company today.

It is just not possible (and is itself humorous to state) to remove all variability and human factor from any type of manufacturing. Besides, camera companies also buy parts, lens housings, optical components, contract manufactured complete lenses, etc. That is particularly true for cheaper or kit lenses, which are often contracted from third party manufacturers, including sometimes the entire design and development of the lens.

Do you really believe there is no variability or human factor involved in the manufacture of the 100-400 lens? Or that Panasonic spends as much time and effort assuring acceptable quality for every copy of the 12-32 lens as they do the 100-400 lens?

The 42.5 f1.7 or the 25mm? I don't remember complaints about the former...

Right - 25mm f1.7.

Anyway, if they really told Wasabi that they meticulously test every lens off the line for decentering, then they were just straight up blowing smoke up his... Or their test only checks for the kind of decentering that would happen if you take a hammer to the lens.

Sorry Wasabi Bob, you lost this debate. It looks as nobody in this thread believes in tales you were told at Pansonic. Every lens manufacturer including Sony, Canon, Nikon etc, could tell you the same tales how superbly their production is automated, how great quality their products are and how superb their quality control is.

But the truth is that bad lenses and cameras still leave their factories.
Some time ago I bought Sony HX90 in a Sony Center shop. I tried three cameras and only one had no problems (one to three!) I described what happened during the purchase at: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3923170
Nobody answered, but it was understandable, after all it was a Sony thread, users mostly prize their products there.

I got a Panasonic 14-140 the other week as part of a kit, with the G7 and 25mm. Already had a 14-140, so I planned to resell it. I compared the old and new, and my old one was sharper at every focal length. Not what I was expecting to see.

I didn't feel comfortable passing it on to someone else, so I returned the kit to Adorama. Had to pay shipping back. Then I saw today they also deducted the "free" shipping from my refund. I guess they didn't believe me about the lens. I imagine it will be resold to someone else now.

BTW, the first (sharper) lens was bought on eBay. Gray market I think. I doubt that there is any rule about what packaging gives you better copies of lenses.

Ron Outdoors wrote:

I got a Panasonic 14-140 the other week as part of a kit, with the G7 and 25mm. Already had a 14-140, so I planned to resell it. I compared the old and new, and my old one was sharper at every focal length. Not what I was expecting to see.

I didn't feel comfortable passing it on to someone else, so I returned the kit to Adorama. Had to pay shipping back. Then I saw today they also deducted the "free" shipping from my refund. I guess they didn't believe me about the lens. I imagine it will be resold to someone else now.

BTW, the first (sharper) lens was bought on eBay. Gray market I think. I doubt that there is any rule about what packaging gives you better copies of lenses.

That sucks, I would've tried arguing the point with them, tho I dunno if they have a policy of ever paying for return shipping. I don't think I paid for return shipping on bad 12-35 I got from B&H (zoom rubbed and squeaked more than any cheap zoom I've ever handled, and I tried breaking it in a bit); but I dunno what their stance on decentered lenses is either...

Amazon would probably accept whatever story you give, but they would definitely try reselling it if it looks good (sometimes as a Warehouse deal, but often as new, gotten a few opened packages from them myself). I would hope B&H/Adorama would be better about that kinda thing and would return it to Panasonic or sell it "refurb", but I really dunno.

Odds are Panasonic themselves would return it without much of a test anyway, at least to a customer... Everything is always "within spec" when it comes to that kinda flaw. I guess our acceptable margin for being within spec and theirs or Wasabi's differs a good deal.

Impulses wrote:

Ron Outdoors wrote:

I got a Panasonic 14-140 the other week as part of a kit, with the G7 and 25mm. Already had a 14-140, so I planned to resell it. I compared the old and new, and my old one was sharper at every focal length. Not what I was expecting to see.

I didn't feel comfortable passing it on to someone else, so I returned the kit to Adorama. Had to pay shipping back. Then I saw today they also deducted the "free" shipping from my refund. I guess they didn't believe me about the lens. I imagine it will be resold to someone else now.

BTW, the first (sharper) lens was bought on eBay. Gray market I think. I doubt that there is any rule about what packaging gives you better copies of lenses.

That sucks, I would've tried arguing the point with them, tho I dunno if they have a policy of ever paying for return shipping. I don't think I paid for return shipping on bad 12-35 I got from B&H (zoom rubbed and squeaked more than any cheap zoom I've ever handled, and I tried breaking it in a bit); but I dunno what their stance on decentered lenses is either...

Amazon would probably accept whatever story you give, but they would definitely try reselling it if it looks good (sometimes as a Warehouse deal, but often as new, gotten a few opened packages from them myself). I would hope B&H/Adorama would be better about that kinda thing and would return it to Panasonic or sell it "refurb", but I really dunno.

Odds are Panasonic themselves would return it without much of a test anyway, at least to a customer... Everything is always "within spec" when it comes to that kinda flaw. I guess our acceptable margin for being within spec and theirs or Wasabi's differs a good deal.

I just emailed Adorama to complain about it. I've bought a several things in the past from them. Maybe they will make an adjustment. You're probably right that the lens would be found to be within spec, if it was checked.

I've returned things to B&H when they were not what I expected, rather then a defect. I paid the return shipping, but they didn't bill me the free shipping. And like you said, Amazon is very liberal with free returns. But I don't usually order more expensive items from them, as I'm in a state where they collect the sales tax.

HelenOster wrote:

Ron Outdoors wrote:

I just emailed Adorama to complain about it. I've bought a several things in the past from them. Maybe they will make an adjustment. You're probably right that the lens would be found to be within spec, if it was checked.

I've returned things to B&H when they were not what I expected, rather then a defect. I paid the return shipping, but they didn't bill me the free shipping. And like you said, Amazon is very liberal with free returns. But I don't usually order more expensive items from them, as I'm in a state where they collect the sales tax.

Hi Ron

our return policy does state: http://www.adorama.com/help/returnPolicy

Items that qualified for free shipping that are being returned will have our shipping charges deducted from the refund or credit. The return shipping cost (the cost to send an item back to us) is not refundable.

However, if we are shipping a replacement then it isn't usual for the 'free' shipping to be deducted. If you get no joy with our main CS department, then please feel free to reach to me directly: Helen@adorama.com and I'll see if I can do anything to help.

Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador

Hi Helen,

Yes, I did look at your return policy. Here is part of what it says:

"If a product is received defective or incorrect, please contact us immediately and we will do whatever possible to resolve the issue. We will only cover return shipping if we are notified prior to return."

So, I did call first, prior to the return, and explained that the lens was not sharp. The representative said no problem and emailed me instructions for the return. I checked "Defective" on the form. It was only after my refund was issued, that I saw the free shipping had been deducted. I emailed your customer service department yesterday about this but have not received a reply.

Ron Hartman

HelenOster wrote:

Ron Outdoors wrote:

HelenOster wrote:

Ron Outdoors wrote:

I just emailed Adorama to complain about it. I've bought a several things in the past from them. Maybe they will make an adjustment. You're probably right that the lens would be found to be within spec, if it was checked.

I've returned things to B&H when they were not what I expected, rather then a defect. I paid the return shipping, but they didn't bill me the free shipping. And like you said, Amazon is very liberal with free returns. But I don't usually order more expensive items from them, as I'm in a state where they collect the sales tax.

Hi Ron

our return policy does state: http://www.adorama.com/help/returnPolicy

Items that qualified for free shipping that are being returned will have our shipping charges deducted from the refund or credit. The return shipping cost (the cost to send an item back to us) is not refundable.

However, if we are shipping a replacement then it isn't usual for the 'free' shipping to be deducted. If you get no joy with our main CS department, then please feel free to reach to me directly: Helen@adorama.com and I'll see if I can do anything to help.

Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador

Hi Helen,

Yes, I did look at your return policy. Here is part of what it says:

"If a product is received defective or incorrect, please contact us immediately and we will do whatever possible to resolve the issue. We will only cover return shipping if we are notified prior to return."

So, I did call first, prior to the return, and explained that the lens was not sharp. The representative said no problem and emailed me instructions for the return. I checked "Defective" on the form. It was only after my refund was issued, that I saw the free shipping had been deducted. I emailed your customer service department yesterday about this but have not received a reply.

Ron Hartman

I'll need your order number, Ron!

> Helen@adorama.com

Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador

Okay Helen, I'll email you directly. I think this is just a difference in understanding of the return process.