was i sold a returned black M8 from B&H ?

[Plasmat]

Oh my GOSH! It just dawned on me! 53 shots was exactly what I had put on that new Leica M8 BEFORE I ACCIDENTLY DROPPED IT IN THE TOILET!

Let's see. I used the blow dryer on it, dried it off, put it back in the box, and brought it back to B&H just a few days ago. I told them I was disappointed in Leica over that darn MAGENTA issue.

I'll be a monkey's uncle. I'm POSITIVE they sent you mine! Holy Heck, what a predicament!!

 

[BudGreen]

So how was this resolved being that Rollei couldnt fix it? Curious.

I had to have the camera mailed back to me from Rollei, then on to B&H. They eventually sent me a replacement, but it took a lot of arm twisting to get them to simply pay for the shipping.

My experience with B&H support (and B&H in general) had always been positive up until this point, but I had to make at least half a dozen calls to the support line to get this matter resolved. Each time I had to explain my story to a disbelieving support rep, and each time they dropped the ball after hanging up the phone and I'd have to start all over again.

Part of the problem with this incident is that it reminded me that I once ordered a "new" Leica 24mm Elmarit lens from them which arrived in a Summilux 50mm box. I was surprised, but because the lens appeared to be in pristine condition with all of the proper paperwork, I didn't make a big deal of it. Now I wonder what the story behind that was.

 

[David Murphy]

I would not accept the camera - they are ripping you off. The camera should be new, sealed -- period-end-of-story -- that is what you paid for.

 

[varjag]

Jeez, you mean this really bothers people?

Hell, yeah. If a used camera was sold instead of new for the full retail price of $5000, the buyer has all rights to complain.

 

[ian_watts]

For what it's worth, the first shot I took with my M8 was L1000001.DNG so it does look as if your M8 could have been 'used' at some time between Leica's shipment and B&H's supply to you. Alternatively, it could simply be that the Leica technician doing the testing forgot to reset the counter on your M8 to zero.

Unless the camera is visibly marked in any way I would try and forget about it. If you return it you may have to wait weeks for another black M8 to turn up and after you've used the new one for 50-odd shots you'd only be back where you are now.

 

[MarkM6]

I would never buy "new" photographic stuffs through the mail-order when it is more than $1000; period.

 

[Plasmat]

Hell, yeah. If a used camera was sold instead of new for the full retail price of $5000, the buyer has all rights to complain.

I still don't see the problem. It looks brand new. It works fine. It has a full guarantee. The camera is scarce. It has the FULL factory warranty.

This sort of thing would never bother me. The issue is more psychological then a matter of being "ripped off". Who cares?

It would be different if there was signs of use or if the camera had heavy use, but obsessing over a possible 50 shutter actuations? You're not buying jewelry or an ego enhancing pill (well, some of you are), it's just a CAMERA.

 

[MCTuomey]

Why is it dishonest or "low" to resell a camera on eBay?

If it's described as "almost new" and is in mint condition, and someone is willing to pay the price whatever it is, why does that offend your sensibilities?

People buy things to resell on eBay all the time. Is there something wrong with that"

If you disclose fully the camera's background, nothing is wrong. But omitting the full story, as you suggest doing, is deceptive. I.e. failing to tell the whole truth. That's what's offensive in your suggestion. Profit through deception is ethically unacceptable to most folks.

 

[Sailor Ted]

If you disclose fully the camera's background, nothing is wrong. But omitting the full story, as you suggest doing, is deceptive. I.e. failing to tell the whole truth. That's what's offensive in your suggestion. Profit through deception is ethically unacceptable to most folks.

Where exactly in Plasmat's post did he suggest not telling the whole truth?

Geez

 

[varjag]

Where exactly in Plasmat's post did he suggest not telling the whole truth?

Geez

If you care to read the original post of the thread, B&H didn't tell anything about item not being new. It was a fair assumption that Plasmat was fine with that.

 

[Sailor Ted]

If you care to read the original post of the thread, B&H didn't tell anything about item not being new. It was a fair assumption that Plasmat was fine with that.

I understand where B&H messed up- they are a pack of vipers from my experience. What I think I was commenting on was an assertion that Plasmat was suggesting something dishonest in re-selling the camera on eBay. I was not however defending B&H 😱

 

[varjag]

Ah, I see, my bad 😱 Missed which conversation "subthread" that was as they're worded fairly similarly, sorry.

 

[Plasmat]

I didn't comment on the ethics/morality of B&H selling it "new" or not.

My point is, this is something that is so miniscule in the big scheme of things, it would never bother me.

If I were a rare coin collector or a baseball card collector and the value of an object mattered greatly if it were "factory sealed", then this becomes a matter of importance.

If I receive a camera which is for all intents and purposes new, works perfectly, has full warranty, shows no sign of use, but APPEARS to perhaps have been taken out of the box, or has a tiny number of shutter actuations (which may or may not be evidence of a few test shots), I personally would not care a bit.

Is this a reason to get all bent out of shape or not enjoy the camera? To go to the huge trouble of exchanging it?

I am not someone who lives in such a rigid moral universe that I would let this trouble me, or feel that somehow I was a "victim".

It's all how you view material objects and life in general. If you take great offense at this "problem", or if this diminishes it's value for you, then by all means send it back.

PS: I stand by my "subthread" comment. I see absolutely nothing wrong in selling it on eBay, from any moral standpoint.

 

[Sailor Ted]

I am not someone who lives in such a rigid moral universe that I would let this trouble me, or feel that somehow I was a "victim".

Plasmat you’re hitting the nail on the head on more then just this topic with your statement.

 

[varjag]

If I receive a camera which is for all intents and purposes new, works perfectly, has full warranty, shows no sign of use, but APPEARS to perhaps have been taken out of the box, or has a tiny number of shutter actuations (which may or may not be evidence of a few test shots), I personally would not care a bit.

Is this a reason to get all bent out of shape or not enjoy the camera? To go to the huge trouble of exchanging it?

This is up for everyone to decide for themselves. All my cameras except one one and most of lenses were bought used, but I knew that in advance and prices reflected that. But, the seller should advertise the item as it is, point. Not something unreasonable to ask when buying a five grand camera body. If someone is buying a new Leica, he should get exactly that, a new Leica. Not a mint++ user, demo unit or a refurb. It can be as simple as psychological factor you mentioned (not something unimportant BTW), or as complex as bundled software not being already registered for someone else's name.

 

[MCTuomey]

Where exactly in Plasmat's post did he suggest not telling the whole truth?

Geez

He states that the eBay description would read "almost new" without any further elaboration or description of the camera's condition. I think that's less than the whole truth. The fact is that the buyer/owner of the camera suspects something may be wrong with the camera. Selling it to someone else without disclosing this possibility under the banner of "almost new" is a form of deception.

I apologize if my post seems overbearing. The subject of ethics (or lack thereof) practiced on eBay is one of my unfortunate rants. Plasmat's post seemed to capture the "spirit" of eBay rather well, and I see I've overreacted.

 

[MCTuomey]

PS: I stand by my "subthread" comment. I see absolutely nothing wrong in selling it on eBay, from any moral standpoint.

Of course you do. You suggested the idea of selling it, after all. And I doubt you see yourself as an immoral person.

 

[Plasmat]

unexpectedly a black M8 showed up on my door step this morning. i had ordered one a while back, but didn't receive any shipping notices.

the camera and packaging looked pretty good, but the battery was fully charged and the file numbering started at 53.

does leica take test shots before shipping the camera?

otherwise, anyone from here return a black M8 to B&H? want to tell me its history?

Above is the full text of the original post. He says nothing about any problems other than that he feels the camera might have been used to take test shots or that the box might have been opened and the battery charged, possibly by some previous "owner".

If he sold it as such on eBay, I fail to see any other "problems". My guess is that he'd probably make $500-$800 profit if he listed it on eBay immediately.

Where is the moral ambiguity there? Are you opposed to someone speculating and making a profit, or do you feel it is immoral to sell a "slighty used, like new" camera?

 

[Harry Lime]

I still don't see the problem. It looks brand new. It works fine. It has a full guarantee. The camera is scarce. It has the FULL factory warranty.

This sort of thing would never bother me. The issue is more psychological then a matter of being "ripped off". Who cares?

It would be different if there was signs of use or if the camera had heavy use, but obsessing over a possible 50 shutter actuations? You're not buying jewelry or an ego enhancing pill (well, some of you are), it's just a CAMERA.

Well, it is a rip off.

New in the box at list price, means new in the box.

The minute they use it as a demo camera it is no longer new in the box, but 'demo unit as new' or 'mint demo' and they shouldn't charge full price for it.

Believe me, if the situation was reversed they wouldn't be as flexible as you suggest he should be.

HL

 

[MCTuomey]

If he sold it as such on eBay, I fail to see any other "problems". My guess is that he'd probably make $500-$800 profit if he listed it on eBay immediately.

Where is the moral ambiguity there? Are you opposed to someone speculating and making a profit, or do you feel it is immoral to sell a "slighty used, like new" camera?

I'll try once more to make my point.

The key is actually in your use of the phrase "as such" in reference to how the camera is portrayed on eBay in your hypothetical sale.

If "as such" means the eBay description is only "almost new" and nothing else then I think you're deceiving potential buyers. Why? Because "almost new" implies no issues with the camera. And this camera may or may not have issues - the present owner in fact is looking for assurance that there is no unfavorable history associated with it. If you or I were contemplating buying the camera, we would want to know this circumstance, I believe.

If "as such" means full disclosure of the circumstances of the purchase of the camera by the present owner in the eBay description, then I think there is no ethical issue with the offer to sell, speculative or otherwise.

But to buy low, sell high, and in the process hide the weenie ... no, I don't think that's ethical. Do you?

And I think I should apologize to the OP for hijacking this thread.