Jump to content

M9 sensor problem killing trade-in values


dunhoy

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As someone who works for a U.S. dealer, I'm still curious as to what is meant by "quite onerous conditions being placed on dealers taking cameras in." I'm not aware of any - but then, we have not been offered an M9 in trade for nearly a year, so the sensor corrosion per se has not yet been an issue.

 

Our general policy is - we don't take in ANY camera on trade if it is ALREADY "broken". The possibility of a future problem occuring while on our possession is factored in - we don't touch Nikon D600s, for example, unless they are accompanied by proof that the "new" shutter has been installed, and we have checked them ourselves for corner-dust problems

 

AFAIK, if we were offered an M9/MM, we'd just:

 

- check the camera to see what the current state of the sensor is (not that hard, given that we do several in-house sensor cleanings/testings a day, and have lots of examples, thanks to this forum, of what to look for regarding corrosion at various stages. I.E. - we ARE actually technically competent. ;)

 

- confirm with Leica USA that lifetime sensor replacements include dealers - my assumption right now is that they do: lifetime is lifetime, regardless of whose hands are on the camera at any given moment.

 

- make our usual offer (60-65% of our resale price) - basing the assumed resale price on current conditions, but possibly factoring in that CUSTOMERS might be leary of these particular cameras (not us.)

 

We get lots of trade-ins - Leica and otherwise - and occasionally something will blow a gasket after we adopt it. Sony LCDs, Hassy shutters, pro Nikon shutters, Rollei wind mechanisms, student camera meters. It happens. It's why we leave ourselves 35-40% gross markup - because some of that will, over time and on average, be eroded by repair costs (including those we cover during our 6-month used-gear warranty period).

 

In other words - we can be, and occasionally are, blind-sided by a trade-in camera failure. Basic cost of doing business. At least with an M9/MM we have a good idea of what to look for.

 

As an M9 user (and photographer in general) - my own assumption is that ANY camera I buy has ZERO value the moment I walk out the shop door. Except for the value of the pictures it will produce. I planned on ten years for the M9s, and am halfway there. I expect to make it all the way.

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what this has to do with anything - Leica cameras hold their value - they're marketed as "cameras for life".

 

Yes cameras for life, it's a two way understanding between Leica and the owner. They go as far as possible to support you and the camera while you have it. But if the owner decides renege on that understanding and trade it in it's not 'for life' is it?

 

If you decide to 'divorce' your Leica then it takes with it a good proportion of the money you put into it. It is a deal done in a marketplace that Leica have no influence in unless people expect them to artificially bolster second hand prices as I'm sure the OP would right now. This situation isn't new, the value of digital cameras are at the whim of every other manufacturer, if somebody brought out a cheaper digital M compatible body the value of all Leica digital bodies would fall, an announcement could happen at any of the photo shows. But when the world stampeded towards digital, and Leica had nothing to compete with, the value of the film bodies plummeted. We heard the same complaints then, that people had put a vast amount of money into the system and it's value had halved overnight. So how many times does it need saying, you only lose money when you sell something, if you keep it for life you don't lose a penny.

 

Steve

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

So how many times does it need saying, you only lose money when you sell something, if you keep it for life you don't lose a penny.

 

 

True. I don't think I have ever suggested otherwise - "how many times do I have to make the point".

 

My concern is not resale but Leica's ability (or willingness) to repair the camera for as long as I want to use it. 10 years is insufficient for a camera of this quality and price.

 

I think we all accept that there is a mismatch between the quality of the electronics and the rest of the camera. It is not true that electronic parts cannot or should not be sourced long after technology of new products has moved on.

 

Not at the price Leica charges for this camera.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aperture would not touch it for a trade in, saying they had three M9 at Leica getting new sensors. RG Lewis would consider a trade-in but valued it very low and that was subject to it being inspected by the technical folk at Leica in Mayfair.

That's 2 dealers, one of which has 3 in stock already (few dealers will stock a large used number of one model in my experience). And where's the evidence of 'onerous conditions'? The price of M9s is falling, but slowly and I have not as yet found them at really low prices (I might be tempted if I did). The M8 remains a far lower depreciating digital camera than many of its contemporaries despite its 'problems' too as does the M9.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... I planned on ten years for the M9s, and am halfway there. I expect to make it all the way.

I do as well. I know I will not get the same 45 years out of my M9 as I did from my M4 but 10 is reasonable. I'm on my second sensor now and I'll go for a third if necessary. I have no plans to trade in this camera. But the sensor problem stopped me from buying a MM as buying something with a known problem just seems stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how many times does it need saying, you only lose money when you sell something, if you keep it for life you don't lose a penny.

 

I think you would have the same loss, but until the camera is sold that loss has not been realised. Loss is the sale price relative to the purchase price, but don't forget you had to pay for the thing in the first place! If you never sell it then the loss is 100%.

 

However, over many years that loss per year becomes smaller and smaller. And in that situation a Leica camera with 10 year life span is a pretty good deal.

 

Is buying a camera really an Investment? I would think it is generally a Cost (a Fixed Asset if used professionally).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is buying a camera really an Investment? I would think it is generally a Cost (a Fixed Asset if used professionally).

 

This is part of the problem, people so often talk about 'investment' but generally they don't mean it in he sense of 'will my investment go up?', they talk about it as the place they keep their money for the time being. Buying a camera of any sort is rarely a financial investment in the same sense of stocks and shares. But especially now companies and their customers are learning there is a new relationship that hasn't yet been fully resolved between buying a digital camera that is worth next to nothing afte ten years, and a film camera that had a lifespan as long as you like. Only if we throw off previous expectations and stop alluding to investment are we going to enjoy digital photography.

 

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is not resale but Leica's ability (or willingness) to repair the camera for as long as I want to use it. 10 years is insufficient for a camera of this quality and price.

 

That's one reason I carry insurance for full replacement cost, regardless of circumstances. It's part of my built-in expense in the digital camera world. That said, Leica support is better than most.

 

Jeff

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I initially justified my switch to digital based on film and processing costs. 3k a year on 35mm and 6k on 4x5. Using that crude measure a Leica is a 2.5 to 3 year ROI. So investment is the right word.

 

Still, I want and expect to get 10 years out of a Leica body. It must be my Scots blood.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the assurance of Leica and the quality of pictures I can get from my M9, I am quite certain that it will be with me for a long time. :)

 

Same here; I have my M9 now since 2010 with one sensor change for other reasons.

Nevertheless, I think that my and other people's expectations about how long you will keep it are quite unreliable.

But looking at the facts: my M9 is now longer with me than any new bought M has been. I bought a new M6 once after an M4 and went back to M4 within 2 years. My new M7 lasted less than 2 years.

 

Besides this I see dunhoy's OP as pure arousing of public indignation, which Adan has pointed out very well for me. Maybe dunhoy wants to bring prices down with this, to be able to buy one, but thus far I see no effect

Edited by otto.f
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I went to see one of the Leica dealer based in Geneva last week end.

 

I have asked if he could make an offer on my M-E if I trade in for an M-P.

The shop owner replied in a rude way that they were not buying back M9 Me due to the sensor situation.

I was really disapointed by the service offered and by the rudeness of the owner.

 

So far I hav e not seen any issue with my current camera.

 

He will not see any cents from me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a rule of thumb, you can count on seeing $1K in depreciation per year of ownership of a high-end camera, or about $20 a week. Leicas are no exception. That depreciation levels off after a while, but by that point, you have a four-year-old camera. And frankly, the total depreciation divided by the time owned is tiny compared to the cost of renting a camera like that.

 

I am actually shocked to hear that KEH offers 2/3 of a relatively recent camera as a cash price. If you have vintage stuff, you might as well donate it to charity before selling it to them.

 

The best way to unload cameras is via Popflash or another consignment house, where the hit is 20%, and they know how to move the metal. You might take a 14% hit on Ebay (Ebay+Paypal), but your risks are also significantly enhanced. I think that people's expectations vis-a-vis what used dealers pay in cash are unrealistic. The new camera is a low-margin item, and the camera you are trading in carries risks and incurs carrying charges. They might make $1,200 on an ME but ultimately lose money on the M8 that sits there forever. That "profit" or "exploitation" that you are seeing is what keeps the lights on at a lot of places. Camera stores are not golden geese; if they were, they wouldn't all be going out of business.

 

Dante

Edited by dante
Link to post
Share on other sites

The well documented issue with sensor corrosion on the CCD models is killing trade-in values irrespective of what Leica say. Leica have a PR disaster in the making. Inventory of the M240 is moving very slowly (hence big discounts are available) and without doubt a contributory factor is the derisory trade-in values offered for what is otherwise pristine kit.

 

I have spoken with several reputable Dealers: yes Leica will fix corroded sensors add infinitum however unbeknown to the public there are quite onerous conditions being placed on dealers who are taking cameras in....the net result is the bottom is falling out of the market...the M9 and M9P are subject to savage depreciation and the Monochrom will surely follow...especially given you can no longer order it as a new model is coming. When one invests the considerable sums involved into a brand one is entitled to better.

 

That said there is a silver lining to the CCD sensor corrosion cloud....the MM will become cheaper on the used market; the MM is just stunning and ownership of a decent used copy gets nearer by the day ha ha.

 

Yes, agreed.

 

I had 5 Leicas, now 4.

 

Leica has lots of problems cause the company is kinda small fry in the fact they don't have all the research and development $ like the Japanese have and can share tech like they do. Leica is kind of on its own to fumble around and learn from its mistakes. they had it down with the film cams, but digital is another story.

 

2 problems with Leica (other than corrosion and loose lugs)

 

1) Sensor is second rate on M240.

 

2) Price is prohibitive for pro use unless your a rich pro.

 

Other than that love the Leicas...but I would switch to a Japanese rangefinder if there was one and it was price in the $2500 - $3000 area and a good knockoff of the Leica.

 

Maybe that is what Leica should do...hire the Japanese to make a Leica like Zeiss did with the lenses. A better and reliable build for less $.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe that is what Leica should do...hire the Japanese to make a Leica like Zeiss did with the lenses. A better and reliable build for less $.

 

In an important sense, this is what they are doing with the T system (apart from polishing the metal body I suspect virtually everything else is at least part assembled in Japan and/or China) and that product line is not exactly priced for the bargain basement. Built to a similar standard (without compromising the optical rangefinder, etc.) I doubt that a Leica RF camera built in Japan would be much less than 2/3 the current price and might be possibly more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I went to see one of the Leica dealer based in Geneva last week end.

 

I have asked if he could make an offer on my M-E if I trade in for an M-P.

The shop owner replied in a rude way that they were not buying back M9 Me due to the sensor situation.

I was really disapointed by the service offered and by the rudeness of the owner.

 

That sounds awful and pretty poor customer relations...

 

I am surprised because I thought Leica said that as well as free sensor replacement they were offering "generous trade ins"? Why don't you go directly to Leica?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I enjoyed the insightful comments on this thread. A year after the last posting, and with Leica having made good on the sensor issue I wonder if people feel any differently about the issue. I'm certainly grateful for the very responsible way Leica handled the problem. I feel like my M9 has been given a new lease of life!  A lot of the points raised here are more broadly about the way digital cameras depreciate, though.  I enjoy my (rapidly depreciating) digital M's, and like others, I'd be happy if they gave me ten years of use. But when people talk about Leicas being "an investment," in their sane moments they know these things are not financial investments, nor even any kind of store of value. I think they're also thinking about their continuing value as collectible artefacts, as things to attach emotion to.  This is where, however much I enjoy 'using' my digital M's, I have to accept, sadly, that when they stop working they will be mere bricks compared to any mechanical M.  A dead electronic thing seem just.. dead. An old mechanical thing, even if no longer fully functional or practically useful, is something we might still value for its beauty, mechanical excellence or historical significance. It's hard to admire the obsolete excellence of a circuit board.  I hope I'm wrong. There are people who collect vintage Apple computers. Those can still be made to work, although they are no longer 'useful.'

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no particular reason for a digital camera not to remain in working condition for more than ten years. The Digilux 2, for instance, just works perfectly well, if you can get hold of SD cards of the appropriate size, and it will be ten years old, presently.

 

The term "investment" has several meanings. In my country spending money on a tool which will then be used over a time span of several years is legally called an investment. It is added to the assets and depreciates over a length of time. If the intended use extends over more than one year, it's an investment. If you use it only during the year when you bought it, it's called an "expense".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the insightful comments on this thread. A year after the last posting, and with Leica having made good on the sensor issue I wonder if people feel any differently about the issue. I'm certainly grateful for the very responsible way Leica handled the problem. I feel like my M9 has been given a new lease of life!  A lot of the points raised here are more broadly about the way digital cameras depreciate, though.  I enjoy my (rapidly depreciating) digital M's, and like others, I'd be happy if they gave me ten years of use. But when people talk about Leicas being "an investment," in their sane moments they know these things are not financial investments, nor even any kind of store of value. I think they're also thinking about their continuing value as collectible artefacts, as things to attach emotion to.  This is where, however much I enjoy 'using' my digital M's, I have to accept, sadly, that when they stop working they will be mere bricks compared to any mechanical M.  A dead electronic thing seem just.. dead. An old mechanical thing, even if no longer fully functional or practically useful, is something we might still value for its beauty, mechanical excellence or historical significance. It's hard to admire the obsolete excellence of a circuit board.  I hope I'm wrong. There are people who collect vintage Apple computers. Those can still be made to work, although they are no longer 'useful.'

Any Leica whether working or not is an art form just sitting on a shelf. However great old Apple/Macs are they will never attain the beauty of anything Leica.. IMHO..L

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to add that M9 prices are still dropping but not as rapidly as all that. I was lucky and picked up a very cheap one before the end of last year - fully warranted by Leica following an obvious knock and repair - it has a substantial dent which was the cause of its low price, not its age!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...