The valute of use Leica equipment

[Ghiry6591]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I believe the value of used Leicas deserves serious consideration. Sometimes I still hear people say, “Leica maintains a high used value,” or worse, “Leica is an investment.” This is my very unique experience with the Leica Store in Rome, where I have friends who certainly don’t decide Leica’s policies. In the past, I’ve made numerous used/new trades to update my gear. I’d noticed that the value of the equipment wasn’t particularly high, even though I was offering “M” lenses like the 35/2 ASPH, the 24/2.8 ASPH, or the Leica M6 TTL. Obviously, this equipment was several years old, and I thought the low valuation was directly related to this. Then I purchased a Leica Q3 for €5,900. After about a year, unsure whether to buy a new SL-line lens, I asked, out of curiosity, how much they’d value the Q3, kept in perfect condition like all my other gear. Much to my surprise, I was told that the average valuation was—I repeat, after a year—around €2,700, less than half the purchase price, and for a product that, at least at that time, was selling very well, so much so that Leica couldn't meet demand. I must say that at the time, for some reason, I felt a bit betrayed. The devaluation of the Q3 in a year seemed truly enormous. Is the situation in Leica Stores like this in other parts of the world? Honestly, in the future I'll think twice before making a new purchase, not because I'm short on money, but because I can't stand abnormal waste. I'm perfectly aware that Leica equipment considered particularly rare achieves very high values, but I instead want to refer to all those lenses and camera bodies considered "normal" that any of us could offer to a seller for a used/used or used/new exchange. What's your experience?

[Stephen.s1]

I feel your pain...   I buy like new used.  Never new.

[earleygallery]

The store has to sell it on at a profit and also guarantee it so of course you aren’t going to get the full used value, if you want that you should sell privately.

Some Leica equipment has indeed increased in value over the years but it takes time. I think it’s unlikely to apply to any of the digital products.

 

[TomB_tx]

I never buy goods based on resale value or as investment - when you go to sell something it's only worth what a buyer (if any) is willing to pay. So I determine if my use of something is worth the price - and so haven't even considered the more exotic lenses - too many less expensive that serve my purposes.

I've never sold anything Leica - but have given more than a few as gifts.

[fb68]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Ghiry6591:

What's your experience?

I think in your case, they probably didn't want to buy the Q3 at all. I think a one-year-old Q3 should definitely be worth more than €2,700, especially if you were trading it in for another item. I entered the “Leica universe” a few days ago because I've been eyeing it since the first Q came out. At a dealer in Cologne, Germany, I was able to buy a used Q3 complete set (camera in mint condition in its original packaging, UV filter, second original battery, original charger, half case, 1 year warranty) for €4,950. In this respect, I would assume that selling it to a dealer, at least here in Germany, would bring in more than €2,700.

Nevertheless, I also think that the Q3 (or the Q series in general) are probably the cameras with the highest depreciation at Leica.
Leica or not, they are still pretty expensive compact cameras. And, at least in my opinion, as such, the buyer base is significantly smaller than, for example, with an M.

Edited Saturday at 05:20 PM by fb68

[250swb]

I think 2,700 Euro would be a sensible price if selling to a dealer, but it may not be the price you want. Dealers would usually put a 60% markup on secondhand gear, so 2,700 Euro becomes 4,320 Euro before tax (or more if there is a strong demand through maybe a shortage of new items).

The only thing Leica make that you could 'invest' in are the limited editions, and even these often take a dip in price before slowly recovering, the true value in them only becoming apparent after a few years have passed. The reason people use the word 'invest' is in the sense of they are taking their savings and are investing them in the dream a Leica will make a better photograph, so it's an emotional investment more than a financial one. For the rest of us we buy Leica cameras and lenses fully realising that as soon as we leave the shop the value of the item has gone down.

Edited yesterday at 08:29 AM by 250swb

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Cameras are not financial investments: they are investments in your photography that need time to mature. Selling after a year means you lose financially and will not have gained much photographically.

That said, I bought a new SL2 in 2020; four months later the SL2-S was launched and I realised that was the camera I really wanted. Leica's London store swapped my 4 month old body for a new SL2-S with no cash payment (though the SL2-S new retail price was less than that of the SL2).

Edit. I know that neither of these comments are of any comfort to the OP!

Edited yesterday at 08:48 AM by LocalHero1953