Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/05/25
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Lucien: I think there may be different levels of distributors for Cameras in different countries. The distributor is supposed to deal with repairs as part of their pricing from the manufacturer. For example Leica USA may pay $800 per R8, but have to take the good with the bad, while a smaller distributor is say Australia may pay $1,000 for the R8 but get repair and support from Leica. Thus Leica USA is probably stuck with any cameras that they decide to replace rather than repair. This is how I had it explained to me by an owner of a Camera store that has been in the business for over fourty years. His example was for Canon and Pentax, and explaining why their is different warranties between Canadian and US distributed cameras. That is why Canon Canada does not like to honor claims on US purchased cameras. The national distributor is reponsible for the repair and claims for product they distribute and this is factored into what they pay for the product. As for Leica Canada, I have bought some Demo's from them including a 400 2.8 and both the 1.4 and 2x APO extenders. These items were all actually demos used for shows at dealers and in like new shape. As for Canon, their demos are usually the ones the sales reps put in the dealers and loan out and can be pretty worn looking. They also sell off their rentals, which can look really terrible, particularily the long lenses. I guess if Leica USA calls them demo, as other manufactures do, you should just consider them used. Regards, Robert At 06:28 PM 5/25/99 +0200, you wrote: > > >Harrison McClary wrote: >> >> IMHO labeling a defective camera that has been "repaired" as DEMO is >> unethical, may not be illegal, but it left a very bad impression of Leica >> with me. > >Harrison, > >Is this a Leica USA or Leica Solms politic ? > >Thanks, > >Lucien > > > >