Shipping, insurance and peace of mind

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Hello, </p>

<p>I'm wanting to ship my M6 via Canada Post from Halifax to Toronto. Everytime I bring it to the post office and ask for insurance, they tell me I can't get any because I don't have the original receipt?</p>

<p>How are you guys shipping your gear for repair? Is FedEx a better alternative? Do you bother with insurance?</p>

<p>Seems to me that $1000 insurance is more than resonable for a used Leica M6?</p>

<p>J</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Good grief, Julien. What's wrong with it this time?<br>

Yes, send it FedEx.</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Robert, </p>

<p>Lol. Same issue as before; I had it CLA'd which required a new meter (this was the original issue). But shortly after I received it I noticed that the meter would sometimes indicate overexposed regardless of the light condition, including me covering the lens. I had to use the camera the last 5 months for projects so I couldn't send it (it's my only camera now). The problem seemed to have gone away, but it appeared again last week. It seems to happen when it's cold only, which is why I was noticing it in the Fall/Winter - it's been quite warm recently and the problem doesn't appear. </p>

<p>So again, it's a meter issue (and a new meter at that!). It's possible it could be a battery/wiring issue as well. I find it hard to believe that TWO M6 meters in a row are deffective. Or I have the worst luck in the world.</p>

<p>FedEx it is. </p>

<p>J</p>

[graham_line]

<p>Cold weather suggests the problem may be a chilled battery and there is possibly no problem with the meter at all. I wouldn't send the body on another roundtrip without experimenting with different battery types.</p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>Graham, </p>

<p>Thanks. It's something I just realized last week - the problem only existing in the cold. This being said, I've tried multiple batteries throughout the winter, and all would result in the same problem...granted they were the same "brand". Also, I found that if I removed the batteries, the meter would work normally for a few minutes, and then revert to the overexposed. </p>

<p>J</p>

[floyd_waller]

<p>Which battery(s) do you use? Possibly different chemistry would have different cold response. I don't have the cold problem in Texas, so for economy, I use the 1/3N type, 3 volt lithium battery but the other recommended battery would be two 1.5 volt silver-oxide batteries of the MS76, RS76,SR44, V76Px type. Worth a try?</p>

[baisao]

<p>I also live in Texas and use the 1/3N type, 3 volt lithium battery. Meter works great!</p>

[ray .]

I think it's most likely that if you have a fresh battery that meets specifications, the problem is with the meter or wiring.

[philip_wilson]

Julian I use two SR44 batteries and have no meter problems in the cold. I my case I live in the Alberta rockies where it

does get cold. I understand that sliver oxide works better in the cold although my Canons work fine with their lithium cells

(although battery life is shorter in the cold). I understand that there are two types of electrolyte used in silver oxide cells.

Of the two potassium hydroxide Batteries do better in the cold than sodium hydroxide.

[william_tuovinen]

<p>If you're using a 1/3N 3 volt lithium battery I doubt it being cold is the culprit. I've kept my M6 in the cold all day past -20C with no effect on the light meter readings. Alkaline or NiMH batteries will both fail at that point. Even silver oxide cells diminish at that temperature. If the battery is the culprit I suspect its either not fresh or the meter is being left on drawing it down.</p>

[knut_schwinzer]

<p>William is correct, the 1/3N Lithium is the most cold resistant of all those, in my experience.</p>

<p>I also had problems with M6 meters, I did cure it by moving around 20 or so times the iso setting wheel, removing debris and reestablishing a good contact.</p>

<p>It could be due to condensation in your case. Do you use your left or your right eye to focus? If you are left eyed, your nose is close to the iso wheel, your breath condensating and maybe entering in the potentiometer.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p> </p>

[julien_boudreau]

<p>I've decided to ship it for service (still under warranty since I had a new meter installed last summer and it was CLA'd). </p>

<p>However, when I went to FedEx they gave me a quote of $100?!?!?! I used $1500 for 'declared value' but this seems unreasonably high. What gives? Canada post won't even let me insure it without a receipt, FedEx is charging me and arm and a leg - looks like shipping companies just don't want to take responsibility for their mistakes? </p>

<p>Should I even bother declaring its value?</p>

<p>J</p>

[william_tuovinen]

<p>Assuming both carriers have similar loss or damage rates they are going about insurance beyond the standard coverage in their terms of service agreement in fair if different ways. Neither is likely to be able to improve their handling of your package if you purchase insurance. Canada Post probably finds that the burden of providing proof of value reduces the number of insurance claims a year and that passes along a lower service cost to the consumer. FedEx presumably doesn't care what the proven value of a parcel is or how many people choose to insure their packages so long as the cost of processing and claims annually is less than the service brings in, which is bound to include a healthy profit. <br>

Personally $100 sounds high, I would probably cut that down by not valuing the camera on its way to repair as high as a fully functioning one returning from it.</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>IMHO, if one tries to protect a piece of equipment to it's<strong> full & true high value</strong>, causes three things to occur: </p>

<ol>

<li>It "Red Flags" the package as something that <strong>may be worth chancing</strong> something nefarious.</li>

<li>It makes for unnecessary extra revenue to the carrier.</li>

<li>It allows for possible rejection of the package by the carrier due to limits; narrows your options. </li>

</ol>

<p><strong>Common sense</strong> dictates that one should insure it for a "stealthy" sensible value that would bring:</p>

<ol>

<li>A direct adult <strong>signature</strong>.</li>

<li>A <strong>full investigation</strong> to the individuals involved with the handling of a lost package.</li>

<li>The revealed "lower than true" value of the contents to show that it <strong>would not be worth</strong> losing their job. </li>

</ol>

[david j.lee]

<p>I once fedexed a rolleiflex from los angeles to atlanta and the camera was lost in memphis. I insured it for 1000.00 and got 1000 back from fedex, plus the cost of the original shipping and the cost from the insurance.</p>