SL3 Rumors

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

59 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Sorry to hear that. I've had dealers refund me on the spot, or exchange a defective product, or deal with Leica on my behalf (in that case it was an S System lens that needed a new AF gear). I guess that not all dealers act that way.

Yes, dealers generally charge more. I used a dealer example because it's easier to look-up. The point remains that an SL (which came-out in 2015) is worth more than a newer a9, even though the a9 initially sold for a similar price (as far as I can tell, I know how much I paid for a new SL, but I rely on the internet for a9 prices in 2017-19).

Long story short: Leicas depreciate, but not as much as many other brands.

Giving somebody their money back when something new doesn’t work is a practice not exclusive to Leica dealers. The issue is when it’s six months old and it goes to heaven. You don’t get an exchange then, nor do you even get a loaner camera, you just get told to send it to New Jersey. And if the camera is out of warranty, more than likely, you’re going to pay something - both scenarios are no different than if you buy your camera/lens from a private seller.

And we are in agreement that Leicas do not depreciate as much as other camera brands. I never really suggested otherwise, though - just that the introduction of the SL3 would drive prices of used SL2 & SL2-S bodies down, which history has shown to be an extremely likely scenario.

So, to circle back…. I’m looking forward to the release of the SL3, either because it will be a lot better than the SL2 and then I’ll want one, or it won’t and I’ll be able to get a gently used SL2-S for less cash…either way, I’m good!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[trickness]

48 minutes ago, Luke_Miller said:

+1

Really? So when your camera/lens breaks, your dealer gives you a loaner? Or speeds up the repair times from Wetzlar? Because that is not my experience, nor the experience of any of the many Leica photographers I know who have purchased from many various dealers, and it would contradict the dozens (hundreds?) of posts here on the forum about the painful customer service/turnaround times provided by Leica. 

Without derailing the thread, please do share your experiences with this in detail, and please name the dealer/s. Posting “+1” doesn’t really qualify as a testimonial and certainly any Leica dealer that can elevate the typical customer service experience should be acknowledged and supported. And it might save us all some unnecessary aggravation and delay.
 

Thanks in advance for illuminating.

 

Edited July 21, 2023 by trickness

[Jeff S]

For starters, some dealers like Leica Miami will not even send gear to NJ, as you mentioned. It goes to Wetzlar or to DAG.  And typically, if used, it goes to one of them even before it’s listed for sale.  That’s why the warranties are often longer, and the prices higher.  But so are trade-in values… e.g ., a mint M10M might be listed currently for $6500-$7000, but a trade is valued at 80% of that.  
 

I use different dealers, depending if I’m buying, selling or trading, whether new or used, and of course depending on inventory and my past dealings. Some have accommodated in ways I wouldn’t disclose here. It pays to build relationships and know your dealer’s strengths/weaknesses.

I haven’t had to deal with NJ in many years; nor suffer long repair wait times.

Jeff

[BernardC]

15 hours ago, trickness said:

that is not my experience, nor the experience of any of the many Leica photographers I know who have purchased from many various dealers, and it would contradict the dozens (hundreds?) of posts here on the forum about the painful customer service/turnaround times provided by Leica. 

To be fair, the worse of that was around six years ago, and only for US/Canada customers. I believe they were switching CRM software at the time.

They also had a slow period during lockdown, however they were very clear about the backlog. I only needed a minor thing done (lens coding) so I decided to wait a few months, at which time the backlog had cleared.

The last time I dealt with Leica NJ they were quite prompt. I wouldn't be surprised if those issues were fully resolved. Maybe it's time to stop being nostalgic about bad service?

[Luke_Miller]

16 hours ago, trickness said:

Without derailing the thread, please do share your experiences with this in detail, and please name the dealer/s.

Tony Rose at Popflash.  Long story, but when Leica NJ messed up the repair of my M9M (cover glass corrosion) he got it sorted.  When Leica NJ quits responding to its customers it continues to be responsive to it dealers.  I buy all my Leica gear from Popflash.  I know they have my back should there be an issue.  You are welcome.

[Jeff S]

Popflash (Tony and Alex) is also among my dealers of choice. 

I should stress the importance of relationships with specific individuals at these dealerships, not just the dealership as a whole. There are a number of trustworthy and responsive individuals that I continue to rely on. As a Leica owner since the 80’s, unfortunately some of these folks have left the business or passed away. But various others have remained or emerged. As when one builds a house, it’s important not only to use a reputable construction company, but to have trust and confidence in the foreman on the job. It pays to know whom you can count on, and the authority that they hold… and at times their “clout” with key folks at Leica.

Jeff
 

 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Jeff S

[wellfleet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Popflash (Tony and Alex) is also among my dealers of choice. 

+1 for Popflash

[trickness]

4 hours ago, Luke_Miller said:

Tony Rose at Popflash.  Long story, but when Leica NJ messed up the repair of my M9M (cover glass corrosion) he got it sorted.  When Leica NJ quits responding to its customers it continues to be responsive to it dealers.  I buy all my Leica gear from Popflash.  I know they have my back should there be an issue.  You are welcome.

I’ve brought a couple of bodies from them as well. When my Q2M died, they provided the contact information for Leica New Jersey, who upon receipt forwarded it to Wetzlar, who got it back to me fixed in about eight weeks. This was Spring 2022.
 

No knock on them, but I certainly wouldn’t pay a 25-30% premium over a private sale used price for this. They do usually have good new prices.

Edited July 22, 2023 by trickness

[Simone_DF]

21 hours ago, BernardC said:

Long story short: Leicas depreciate, but not as much as many other brands.

Nope. Not at all. Let's look at numbers using the example provided by yourself:

The original SL was launched in 2015 for 7450$

The Sony A9 was launched in 2017 for 4499$

Right now the price for a SL in 9+ condition is 2499$, for a 9+ A9 is 2469$ on B&H. Since they both are in the same "as new" condition, let's use that. I can see the price difference is the same 50$/€ in Europe on mbp.com for cameras in same condition, so there seem to be price consistency across dealers.

7450 - 2499 = 4951 / 8 (number of years on the market) = 618 dollars per year of depreciation

4499 - 2469 = 2030 / 6 = 338 dollar per year of depreciation 

A person purchasing their SL in 2017 and selling it today would lose 4951$, whereas a person purchasing an A9 would lose 2030$. This is if we look at absolute numbers, that tell us only a part of the story.

But if we also look at percentage, the SL lost 66% of its value in 7 years, the A9 lost 45% in 5 years.

 

Even if we look at the price of a SL typ601 in 2017, the situation is the same. The original 7k price was slashed to 5595$ by Leica.

5595$  - 2499 = 3096 / 6 = 516$ dollars per year of depreciation. A person purchasing a SL in 2017 and selling it now would lose 3096 vs 2030 lost for an A9

In percentage: a SL purchased at the slashed 5k price depreciated 55% in 2023, vs 45% of an A9

So no matter how you look at it, the Leica SL typ 601 depreciated way more than an A9

 

[Photoworks]

12 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Nope. Not at all. Let's look at numbers using the example provided by yourself:

The original SL was launched in 2015 for 7450$

The Sony A9 was launched in 2017 for 4499$

Right now the price for a SL in 9+ condition is 2499$, for a 9+ A9 is 2469$ on B&H. Since they both are in the same "as new" condition, let's use that. I can see the price difference is the same 50$/€ in Europe on mbp.com for cameras in same condition, so there seem to be price consistency across dealers.

7450 - 2499 = 4951 / 8 (number of years on the market) = 618 dollars per year of depreciation

4499 - 2469 = 2030 / 6 = 338 dollar per year of depreciation 

A person purchasing their SL in 2017 and selling it today would lose 4951$, whereas a person purchasing an A9 would lose 2030$. This is if we look at absolute numbers, that tell us only a part of the story.

But if we also look at percentage, the SL lost 66% of its value in 7 years, the A9 lost 45% in 5 years.

 

Even if we look at the price of a SL typ601 in 2017, the situation is the same. The original 7k price was slashed to 5595$ by Leica.

5595$  - 2499 = 3096 / 6 = 516$ dollars per year of depreciation. A person purchasing a SL in 2017 and selling it now would lose 3096 vs 2030 lost for an A9

In percentage: a SL purchased at the slashed 5k price depreciated 55% in 2023, vs 45% of an A9

So no matter how you look at it, the Leica SL typ 601 depreciated way more than an A9

 

What is an A9?

 

I think you got to agree that 2 years difference makes a big difference in tech!

[Simone_DF]

56 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

What is an A9?

The Sony A9 was the first premium mirrorless released by Sony. https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a9-full-review 

56 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

I think you got to agree that 2 years difference makes a big difference in tech!

Yup, that's why I compared it both to the original 7450$ price and the 5550$ price. But if somebody claims that the SL depreciated LESS than the most recent A9 and not as much as other bands, it should also be backed up with actual data, not pixie dust and fairy tales.

I can also take a 2015 camera, the Sony A7RII, which was NOT a premium model like the A9 or the Leica SL.

On B&H is 1079 for a used copy in 9+ conditions. 3200 was the original price.

3200 - 1079 = 2121 / 8 = 265 dollars of depreciation per year.

That's also a 66% depreciation. So, the statement that Leicas depreciate less compared to other brands is still false. The Leica SL depreciated the same % as the puny A7RII, which was a clumsy entry level camera, and more than the A9 which was a premium camera. 

I think we can all agree that the M line is a special case, because it doesn't have competition and prices stay high. But in the ILCE world, the SL is just another camera in the battlefield. 

Edited July 22, 2023 by Simone_DF

[Jeff S]

45 minutes ago, trickness said:

I’ve brought a couple of bodies from them as well. When my Q2M died, they provided the contact information for Leica New Jersey, who upon receipt forwarded it to Wetzlar, who got it back to me fixed in about eight weeks. This was Spring 2022.
 

No knock on them, but I certainly wouldn’t pay a 25-30% premium over a private sale used price for this. They do usually have good new prices.

I don’t use them as a repair intermediary;  mostly to sell used gear (until consignment yields were reduced from 85% max to 75% max). As noted, one needs to know specific dealer’s strengths/weaknesses. There are other dealers that would not send to, or even recommending sending to, NJ. And some will work out a replacement or loaner as circumstances warrant.  
 

Jeff

[BernardC]

16 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

But if somebody claims that the SL depreciated LESS than the most recent A9 and not as much as other bands, it should also be backed up with actual data, not pixie dust and fairy tales.

My estimates are based on the amount that I paid in the real world from an authorized dealer. Either I got an unusually great deal (unlikely), or some archived prices from the internet don't match transaction prices.

Of course, the SL came-out at a higher price, but it was also by far the cheapest way to get a full-frame camera with 10-bit video, professional build, good battery capacity, realistic colour, and a human-grokable menu system. You would have needed a time machine to find another, and time machines are not cheap! There was also the usual Leica "scarcity premium" that applies to new products that aren't in-stock yet. I got mine after the waiting lists had been fulfilled.

In my case, the SL has depreciated by roughly 50% in 5 years, and the a9 by slightly more (but I can only find the launch price, surely no-one pays list for a Sony?). That was in response to a comment that Leica prices "drop like a rock." It must be a very light, parachute-shaped, rock. Compare to your a7 example, which dropped by 2/3 in the same time span!

Of course, if you find a higher asking price on a mint Sony (which means it hasn't been taken out of the box, those things don't wear very well), you'll get a different ratio. You can also work the numbers by picking a higher original price for the SL. That's how numbers work. I based mine on personal experience, but it's easy enough to tweak the ratios, if you can spare the time.

[beewee]

There were definitely deals to be had with the original SL. They had the 24-90 kit bundle for the longest time and because the L-mount was new at the time and this was before L-mount Alliance was made public, people had no choice other than to purchase SL lenses, most people would have bought their camera as a kit anyway.

Moreover, it was very hard for Leica to convince people to buy into the SL system after the initial early adapters jumped onto the band wagon. I know of official Leica Stores offering hefty discounts in 2017 on brand new SL equipment as they were having trouble moving product.

[LocalHero1953]

The T was launched in 2014, and the SL in 2015. I don't recall a kit with the 24-90 at the time, and I bought both as separate items not long after launch. I think the 'kit' came along later to chivvy sales, as is normal in a product cycle.

The L-mount alliance wasn't announced till 2018; "made public" suggests it existed before then, but I doubt it - I suspect Leica's investment in a future-proof mount (Sony's E-mount has been seen as a bit small) attracted Sigma and Panasonic, both in need of a full frame mirrorless mount which didn't belong to Canon and Nikon.

(What I remember most was how the SL came almost out of the blue, though the previous T/TL mount was obviously unnecessarily big for an APSC body. Leica kept the SL well under wraps before the date: which is why I'm sure Leica has fed the frenzy here and elsewhere before other launches - they can keep things quiet when they want to.)

[Simone_DF]

23 minutes ago, BernardC said:

My estimates are based on the amount that I paid in the real world from an authorized dealer. Either I got an unusually great deal (unlikely), or some archived prices from the internet don't match transaction prices.

We are not looking at "I got my camera from the cousin of the flatmate of my neighbour", but at actual prices from dealers, more specifically B&H and mpb.com, since they are among the biggest in US and Europe. I reckon you yourself in your post above are comparing the SL vs the A9 based on B&H prices.

25 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Of course, the SL came-out at a higher price, but it was also by far the cheapest way to get a full-frame camera with 10-bit video, professional build, good battery capacity, realistic colour, and a human-grokable menu system. 

Yes, and the Sony A9 had some other strong features, like being the fastest ILCE when it was released with its 20 FPS per second, top class autofocus, continuous shooting up to 240 photos, 5 axis ibis, super fast readout and BSI sensor. Both were strong cameras in their respective field. Your point is? Please use quantifiable data.

29 minutes ago, BernardC said:

In my case, the SL has depreciated by roughly 50% in 5 years, and the a9 by slightly more (but I can only find the launch price, surely no-one pays list for a Sony?). That was in response to a comment that Leica prices "drop like a rock." It must be a very light, parachute-shaped, rock. Compare to your a7 example, which dropped by 2/3 in the same time span!

Yeah, and again we are not looking at a single case, but at the overall available data for everybody, and to do that we can use only official data. Perhaps you got a sweet deal, and more power to you if you did, but when looking at numbers from official dealers, they tell us that the average buyer got a SL that depreciated 2/3rds like a common A7RII.

Hey, I paid less than listing price for my SL2-S myself, this doesn't mean everybody paid less for theirs.

40 minutes ago, BernardC said:

(but I can only find the launch price, surely no-one pays list for a Sony?)

Source? Given that the A1 was on a waiting list queue for quite a while, yours seems like a random statement. I personally never purchased a Leica at full price either, and never will. It doesn't mean that other people don't do that. 

43 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Of course, if you find a higher asking price on a mint Sony (which means it hasn't been taken out of the box, those things don't wear very well), you'll get a different ratio. 

But I didn't. I picked an A9 and SL in the same condition, both were rated as 9+, and that was the whole point, which is that at the same near mint condition, both cameras depreciate by a given percentage, and it doesn't look good for the SL, even when compared to a lower class camera. 

47 minutes ago, BernardC said:

but it's easy enough to tweak the ratios, if you can spare the time.

No it's not, really. Pick cameras in same condition, do the math. 

57 minutes ago, BernardC said:

That was in response to a comment that Leica prices "drop like a rock." It must be a very light, parachute-shaped, rock.

No, prices of Leica mirrorless do indeed drop like a rock, and at the same speed of other brands. The SL dropped 66% (2/3rds) since its release date. I just showed you with data from B&H and mpb. If you can back up your statement with data from official dealers, please do share it, otherwise it's just wishful thinking.

[BernardC]

I am basing my numbers based on what I paid from an official dealer. It was not a cousin of a flatmate, rather a "brick and mortar" shop with a long history of honourable dealings. I'm sure that some customers paid more, and others less. If what I paid is not a representative price, then so be it, but there is no need to get personal about it. I doubt that either Leica or the dealer lost money on the transaction, all three parties walked away happy.

That particular camera has dropped in value by half since I bought it, but I've also put nearly six-figure shot counts on it, plus hundreds of hours of video (and yet it still looks "mint"). Also, the replacement SL2-S is a great camera which is priced lower than what I paid, accounting for inflation, so the original SL was never going to hold full value. It's not a collectible, it's a working tool...

Why would anyone be upset about using-up half of a camera's value in that time? It's still as-good as it ever was. Better actually, because of free firmware updates that improved battery performance. Frankly, I am pleasantly surprised that the camera held-up as well as it did, and that it's still desirable on the secondary market.

[Leicaflex]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb Simone_DF:

Nope. Not at all. Let's look at numbers using the example provided by yourself:

The original SL was launched in 2015 for 7450$

The Sony A9 was launched in 2017 for 4499$

Right now the price for a SL in 9+ condition is 2499$, for a 9+ A9 is 2469$ on B&H. Since they both are in the same "as new" condition, let's use that. I can see the price difference is the same 50$/€ in Europe on mbp.com for cameras in same condition, so there seem to be price consistency across dealers.

7450 - 2499 = 4951 / 8 (number of years on the market) = 618 dollars per year of depreciation

4499 - 2469 = 2030 / 6 = 338 dollar per year of depreciation 

A person purchasing their SL in 2017 and selling it today would lose 4951$, whereas a person purchasing an A9 would lose 2030$. This is if we look at absolute numbers, that tell us only a part of the story.

But if we also look at percentage, the SL lost 66% of its value in 7 years, the A9 lost 45% in 5 years.

 

Even if we look at the price of a SL typ601 in 2017, the situation is the same. The original 7k price was slashed to 5595$ by Leica.

5595$  - 2499 = 3096 / 6 = 516$ dollars per year of depreciation. A person purchasing a SL in 2017 and selling it now would lose 3096 vs 2030 lost for an A9

In percentage: a SL purchased at the slashed 5k price depreciated 55% in 2023, vs 45% of an A9

So no matter how you look at it, the Leica SL typ 601 depreciated way more than an A9

 

Why so complicated?

Just compare products with the same lifespan and you have a different result:

Introduction by end of 2019: 

Sony A9II 5400€ / Leica SL2 6000€

Used price today:

Sony 2600 – 3200€ / Leica 3600 – 4200€

Or something from 2015:

Sony RX1II 3500€ / Leica Q 4000€

Today:

Sony 2000€ / Leica 2800€ 

And the RX1 is really an exception for Sony with a Leica like fan base. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Simone_DF]

36 minutes ago, Leicaflex said:

Why so complicated?

Because post #399 is about how a SL depreciates less than a A9. 

Also, where did you get that data? I couldn't find a body-only SL2 on B&H or MBP.com to compare their prices

[Jeff S]

With Leica, there are dealers that serve to maximize prices of used gear.  Leica Miami, for instance, regularly has used gear serviced by Wetzlar or DAG prior to sale, resulting in higher prices, and often with extended warranties. Trade in returns to customers are 80% of this market value for excellent condition gear. And, when new gear prices experience a price bump from Leica, Miami will often similarly bump used values to protect their used market.
 

The SL2 was launched for $5995 US.  Leica Miami currently lists a used SL2 on their site for $4395, with a one year warranty. I personally wouldn’t buy one for that, but their inventory turns fairly rapidly, so there is a robust market for sellers and traders.  
 

I don’t know of any Sony (or Canon, Nikon, etc) dealers able to sustain this type of business model. Pay more for used, but get added assurance for quality, and maintain high returns on sale and trade.

 

Jeff

Edited July 23, 2023 by Jeff S