Second Hand Epic M

[Michael Hastings]

I was also under the impression that EPIC-M owners were sort of the new version of the Tattoo program, and to report back to RED to assist firmware development, etc.

Partnering on an M camera is distinctly different than just "flipping" a camera for profit, but that is the world sometimes. And it just may be a little hard to take for the Stage 2 people out there to see M's being on the market while they wait.

Whether it's allowed by RED will have to be answered by RED, but to me it seems opportunistic and not in the spirit of the M program.

With hundreds of Ms out there we are far beyond the tattoo program. But I agree partnering is a different animal. In one form or another I'm probably going to partner on an M because I can't quite justify the expense with my Epic-X (hopefully) right around the corner. But there is no cash profit to me - partnering achieves the same thing for me and Red - it gives me a head start on the dive season and gets us into some unique high value shooting on Epic rather than R1 or other cameras. And that seems like the point of the M program to me - to get the camera being used by high profile DPs and/or productions that wouldn't be if it had to wait until the end of all the trade stages.

 

[AndrewThomas]

I don't think there is any reason to hesitate one the sale of an M once the Xs begin shipping, and I would assume there are plenty of reasons why somebody may want/need to offload an M now. But buying an M is clearly more than a simple financial transactions RIGHT NOW. If you want to sell an M now it would simply be in good taste to give Red a shout and let them know whats up.

 

[Johnny Friday]

I don't think there is any reason to hesitate one the sale of an M once the Xs begin shipping, and I would assume there are plenty of reasons why somebody may want/need to offload an M now. But buying an M is clearly more than a simple financial transactions RIGHT NOW. If you want to sell an M now it would simply be in good taste to give Red a shout and let them know whats up.

I'll have to disagree....and with whom would you speak that even makes a decision or cares? Only a few names come to mind and i think they could care less (or have little time) for such pettiness while running their company. So production buys a camera, shoots with it a feature or commercial or little annie being born and then sells it. Done.....now what? call red, make an appt to talk to one of the Jeffe's ? M's are out there and won't be long till we see them trading...probably already are. So what? RED's were the same. free market and it's up to us to participate or not.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

well - if the camera was bought for a specific production, and that production is completed, then it might make sense to sell it.

I would not do it, especially not since the Dragon upgrade path will undoubtedly be another future-proofing/value enhancing reason to keep a spot in the -M line...

I'm sure RED would be willing to address the situation with the current owner and use it as a framework for developing a re-assignment policy - that is what they did in the early days of RED ONE. Johnny - involving RED addresses the warranty and firmware upgrading access - both pretty valuable commodities with a developing camera.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

Were I in your position, I'd make a quiet call to Red rather than asking this question in an open forum full of people who are insanely jealous of every Epic-M that is shipped. Just sayin'

It's in interesting question, judging by this thread - which suggests it's better discussed publicly, rather than quietly as you suggest.

... it would be taking advantage to use one's status to buy one -- and then sell it for a premium....

If you have sufficient 'status' in the business to qualify to buy one, I can't imagine you would *need* to sell it at all, let alone at a premium.

My 2c - as long as there's a waiting list, the honourable thing to do would be to do a buy-back deal with RED and return the camera for refurbishment to 'new' standard, so the next person in line can get get it...

And I agree, we're well past the Tattoo program now. AFAIK (and I know bugger all but remember reading this) the Tattoo cameras, sold under Tattoo ownership conditions, were all clearly marked 'Tattoo' on the body. What's been shipping since then are straightforward camera sales of EPIC-M; there's no 'stage' or trade-in, it's not restricted to people who already own RED bodies, and any RED bodies they do own are not considered 'executed' by an EPIC-M purchase. If I have any of that wrong, I'm sure I'll be put right.

And I don't buy this thing some have mentioned about 'not getting firmware upgrades'; I can't believe RED would *ever* do that to anyone who owns a RED camera.

(I have no horse in this race; I can't justify the outlay for an EPIC-M, new or used!)

Mike

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

We are required to provide feedback -there are still some features not yet enabled...so it is in essence a Tattoo stage. As i respect the confidentiality of Red's terms of purchase contract, I won't say anymore until officially sanctioned to do so.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

This sounds like the most realistic reason to sell. I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with someone selling something they bought. It makes perfect sense to buy Epic M, shoot a film, and then sell the camera to offset budget cost. Besides, this time next year they will want to shoot with the newest sensor anyways!
-Ryan

In either case, if I was contacted to Broker an M this early in the game or later on for that matter, I will make sure that this would be okay with RED first, then proceed.

 

[Scott Crawley]

I think the Red team would be as curious as the rest of us to know just how high a premium the cam would bring. Why on earth would a company want to discourage an open market that is likely to drive their goods up in value?

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

I think the Red team would be as curious as the rest of us to know just how high a premium the cam would bring. Why on earth would a company want to discourage an open market that is likely to drive their goods up in value?

well - because the camera is not yet considered finished...I'm sure RED wants to stay in close communication with the owners, to avoid misperceptions or misunderstandings by new second owners who may be outside of their communication circle and might spread FUD based on the camera's incomplete feature set -

consider that audio and playback are only now being enabled....

I'm sure that by the time it is considered a finished product, they will have no problem with the original owners selling these cams. But there are still good reasons for them to keep these cams "in the family" until that time, as bugs are worked out and new features are enabled and tested.

 

[D Fuller]

It's in interesting question, judging by this thread - which suggests it's better discussed publicly, rather than quietly as you suggest.
...
Mike

Yes, it's an interesting question, and it's an interesting thread. I'm all for the public discussion, but that's only because I don't have such a deal within reach. If I did have, I wouldn't be discussing it here. Nobody who doesn't work for Red has any idea what the consequences might be. The seller should know what they signed when they bought the M, but I wouldn't trust my relationship with Red to their understanding of the deal, I'd check with Red to be sure I had things straight.

All this discussion is just noise. Interesting noise to be sure (if you're waiting for Stage 2 or 3 and have nothing better to do until the next shoot) if only to gauge the temp of the crowd. But it's not going to get the OP a real answer unless JJ decides that he wants to make a public declaration on the subject.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

well - because the camera is not yet considered finished...I'm sure RED wants to stay in close communication with the owners, to avoid misperceptions or misunderstandings by new second owners who may be outside of their communication circle and might spread FUD based on the camera's incomplete feature set -

consider that audio and playback are only now being enabled....

I'm sure that by the time it is considered a finished product, they will have no problem with the original owners selling these cams. But there are still good reasons for them to keep these cams "in the family" until that time, as bugs are worked out and new features are enabled and tested.

You nailed it. And apart from the very logical reasons you list -- there are emotional ones: I'm not Red and I yet personally don't really feel good about the idea of these cameras being sold ... it's still very early and "in the family" and special. If that sounds sentimental, sorry but Red is not like other camera companies. A camera is not just a camera. Getting an M is a privilege at this point -- using that privilege for profit (other than shooting/renting) just does not seem right. If someone desperately needs an M for a job, they should rent. I doubt Red would sell anyone an M knowing they would use it for a month and turn around and sell it. That's just not the deal now -- again, it's not just another camera.

Now, this could all change once there is no more waiting list and the street price for an M is equal or less than the price from Red. Then it might not matter. However, if I were Red I still may keep the M "special" and sell it (and upgrade it) very selectively.

And for those getting ready to flame me with the fact that this "is a business" -- trust me I'm aware of that. But at the same time, I believe Red is not normal ... in a good way! It is a people-centered company, not a faceless corporation. A company that's madly in love with it's customers. Where the billionaire owner speaks directly to us at 2am (I have firsthand knowledge of this) ... A company that treats it's cameras like living things, like babies even!

Red is different. M's are special ... even more so at this at this point in time. Maybe always. So before adopting one or putting one up for adoption, I think it's wise to check with the original parents

I could be crazy, just my .02 ...

 

[Phil Jagger]

Once you buy something, it's yours. You can do whatever the hell you want with it.

 

[Scott Crawley]

Once you buy something, it's yours. You can do whatever the hell you want with it.

That is true unless you agree to a purchase contract limiting those freedoms. It sounds like this is still the case here.

We understand that schedules change here but assurances were made that Epic would be gold by now, and X order fulfillment would be underway in earnest. The tragedy and resulting parts shortage is the only reason given for the extension of the M program, so in the absence of any word from Red stating that the beta period had been extended, people appear to be assuming that engineering on Epic is complete.

I think that is why some find the continued secrecy confusing.

 

[Phil Jagger]

Yeah agreed, if a contract is signed then it's a different story.

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

The tragedy and resulting parts shortage is the only reason given for the extension of the M program, so in the absence of any word from Red stating that the beta period had been extended, people appear to be assuming that engineering on Epic is complete.

I think that is why some find the continued secrecy confusing.

I don't think there is any secrecy - there is a parts shortage, that's not a secret - the parts can be located, but they can only be purchased individuallly.

That is why M is available while X is in a holding pattern - how many times a day is RED supposed to continue to repeat this?

They can't make the X cams until they can find a source for parts which allows them to HIT THE ORIGINAL PRICE TARGET for the X -

I'm sure they are working madly to make this happen, their reputation depends on it -

Are they happy that there is a huge pent-up -M demand while they wait? i'm sure they are....because NOT selling cameras on their planned economy of scale means RED is not making money - cuz they sure aren't selling many RED ONEs while this holding pattern exists.

I mean, really, think about it, instead of letting the conspiracy brain rule the day. They need to sell stuff to keep their business running, and what they have to sell is M cams. So let them sell some cameras while they work out supply chain issues....

No one has a higher stake in getting these X cameras out the door than RED - doing it on their intended economies of scale means market domination, you think they don't want that?

I have no doubt they are doing everything they can to move as many cameras as possible, bottom line, but they are a little stuck -

RED has limited choices here - they can sell M cameras and make a few bucks, or they raise X prices and have everyone angry with them, or they can delay the X camera while working out the supply issues and have everyone suspicious of them.

There is a bottleneck here, that is all - no secrecy.

As I watch the dollar collapse and inflation soaring, I don't envy RED trying to fulfill on promises they made over a year ago, based on price points that were in reach, at that point. And why did they do this? So that they could give us enhanced features, like HDRx - and now they are having to swallow a wad of negativity for it.

Imagine if you were a gas station owner selling gas futures one year ago, for last year's gas prices, which you had to honor today - you'd be screwed. But you might find a little relief selling gas at cost to people who had not purchased the contract but still were willing to pay for gas at existing prices.

It's not a perfect analogy, but I'm sure the parts shortage has created a similar set of circumstances. It makes a lot more sense than secrecy...

 

[Meryem Ersoz]

Once you buy something, it's yours. You can do whatever the hell you want with it.

That's just fine and dandy to say, but caveat emptor - if you sacrifice the two year warranty on an unfinished camera or lose your upgrade path because you, the new buyer, fall out of RED's system, then the buyer is the greater fool. And the seller isn't much of a seller, though they can laugh at you all the way to the bank....

The prudent thing to do on the buy side would be to give RED a chance to develop a reassignment policy before you do something stupid, like pay a mountain of money for something you devalue by acting in haste, without due diligence.

Just sayin' - it took RED some time to sort out their reassignment policy for RED ONE. I'm sure they will figure one out for EPIC-M. Until that happens, buying or selling an EPIC-M right now may cost you down the road.

Sentiment aside, this just makes for an intelligent business choice - unless you have so much money that you just don't care and are willing to damn the torpedoes and buy an unfinished camera into a policy void and then wait and see what happens. I'm sure those people exist -

 

[Mark Andersen]

I want to clear up a couple things about The "second hand Epic M" for sale. Again for obvious reasons the seller will NOT ever be named by me. This camera is being used on a project and was bought for a project, as Michael has guessed might be the case. It is not for sale now, but will be when the project is finished, probably after Epic X's are delivering. It will not be sold at a premium, the seller is not trying to make a buck, just recoup some bucks. The buyer, me, considers himself part of the "family" and is on the stage 2 list, and is planning on being on the stage 3 list too. I am sure I will not be the only Red owner to be offered a deal like this in the future. I am pretty sure there will be other Epic Ms available for sale in the future by private parties. If Epic Xs are available at a lower price and demend is still high for Epic M, then you'll see some want to trade down and get some money back. I wouldnt be surprised to see Epic Ms in the future sell for less then they were bought for, pay $58K use it on a couple of productions for 6 months, sell it for $48K, buy an Epic x for $28K. A big increase in supply will soften the demand and the price.

 

[Jeremy Torrie]

Phil -while your statement is technically true- the meaning behind 'ownership' has always been to me more of an 'on loan' while we live this curious life notion to me.

I may get laughed at, but ownership always implies responsibility, and naturally taking care of the investment you've made.

 

[Elsie N]

I'm asking this out of curiosity... not to make a point.

Are there other companies that sell physical hardware items and retain control of what the buyer can do with that hardware? I know there are software companies that sell licenses for their apps, but I can't think of a hardware item where the company dictates terms of ownership (other than RED with the R-1, but that was due to rewards given to loyal customers... a carrot backed up by a stick of losing those rewards if "sold" before taking ownership of their Epic). Someone help me out here.

 

[Mark Andersen]

Ferrari does.