Leica M9 and S2 too expensive for you? Rent one!

8 Comments

1. Tmos
   Posted June 28, 2010 at 9:49 am | Permalink

   This is awesome! Ive shopped with them before they are great!

2. Carlos
   Posted June 28, 2010 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

   If I had $30,000 for the deposit, I would buy the silly thing. The only other way to rent this kit is to have renter’s insurance for photographers and they will charge you a whole year’s coverage in advance and then return you a pro-rated amount 6-8 weeks later. This will tack $2000-2500 to the cost of the photo shoot. You better have a client who is willing to pony up that kind of cash up front.

3. Gene
   Posted June 28, 2010 at 5:49 pm | Permalink

   I had an awful time with them the other day. They had a used M9 on their site for $1K off list and listed as “like new.” When I called they put me on hold and came back saying it was a rental and not for sale and that they’d already taken it down off the site.

   So I asked about a 50mm Summilux ASPH the site said was in stock. The site priced it at $3,695. I double-checked the price and the guy confirmed it was $3,695. Then he asked where I lived to calculate my shipping. I told him West L.A. and he put me on hold again. Then he came back with the shipping price but told me the manager was asking $4,200.00 for the lens (call it “the Malibu residents’ price”). I told him that the retail price and the quotes he and the web had just quoted were all $3,650. He put me on hold again to talk to his manager and came back confirming they were sticking with the higher price. Then it suddenly appeared on Amazon for an extra $400 bucks over THAT price. I have no problem with people charging whatever the market bears, but it’s shortsighted for a business not to honor its own published prices.

4. AcePhoto
   Posted June 29, 2010 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

   As far as the rentals go, the deposit is not taken out of your bank account. We just authorize the amount stated as the deposit with your bank to ensure that we are covered if the lense is returned damaged or not returned at all. Nothing is actually charged, your credit card must just have that limit.

   The incident described above is an unfortunate mistake on our part. I assure you that our customer service is rarely, if ever, as bad as the experience above. While I understand the frustration of the caller, the confusion arose when our website automatically updates a product when its in stock to the listed price, not the price of in store sale. While we normally catch this error, which we are working to fix, this lense escaped us.

   Again, we are sorry for the confusion and the negative experience we had with the store and we assure you that this is an isolated incident.

5. Thareq
   Posted July 1, 2010 at 10:56 am | Permalink

   What an awful company. In the lean times your customers will remember this and go somewhere else.

6. Gene
   Posted July 1, 2010 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

   Thareq, I wouldn’t go that far (though maybe you’re being sarcastic?). It’s maybe a bit of a lapse but nothing close to “evil.”

   I can understand and encourage everyone to get as much as the market bears. I just think people should stick to their quotes unless they’re typos or accidents that differ a lot from list. The price quoted me was Leica’s suggested retail price, which means it wouldn’t have sold for a loss. It’s not evil, but it’s a Faustian bargain to re-list it at the higher price, because in the long run it would have been more lucrative to gain a happy, loyal, and serious customer by honoring the deal.

   AcePhoto, thanks for acknowledging the error. One correction: the lower “listed” price was quoted over the phone by in-store sales in response to my asking how much you were charging. The web listing wasn’t mentioned at all—by me or the salesperson.

7. Justin
   Posted July 4, 2010 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

   I’m fairly certain that it’s a federal law that a published price MUST be honored by a merchant. If a merchant sells out of the stock he still must honor it at a later date. It’s my understanding that this is to keep merchants from pulling a bait and switch.

   If you, the merchant really wanted to make good on this, you’d be a man about it, contact the customer and sell him the lens for the advertised price. A lame apology doesn’t make it right, making it right makes it right.

8. Gene
   Posted July 5, 2010 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

   Justin, I’m guessing they don’t have any, honestly (but if they want to make good on that M9 in “like new” condition I could be game…:-)). The 50mm Lux that was yanked out from under me showed up hours later on Amazon at a much higher price that I assume it fetched, as it’s not there anymore,

   Welcome to the perfect storm of a predictably miserable economy combined with an unexpected shortage of M stock. A similar experience happened to me just weeks ago at the hands of a different vendor. They had a 35mm Cron in stock posted for $180 less than everyone else. I ordered it and that evening received an email telling me it was out of stock. The next morning, lo and behold, it was back up on their site, listed as in stock and priced at $180 more. I hope the $180 was worth it. I don’t plan to buy from them again and have spent several grand on stuff from their site in the past.

   Leica’s inability to serve demand for the M9 is bringing out the worst in a few shops that are almost certainly having it rough covering costs these days.