MartinL
MartinL
A word to the foolish (the wise ones don't need words.) For years I've kept an electronics/camera rider on my homeowners insurance policy. $8k for Leica. Up to 12K when I was out quite a lot with a full Canon kit. Can't count how often I questioned the extra premium and came within an inch of cancelling the extra $100+. Then I'd think about the couple of times I walked out of a restaurant, got a block away before racing back. Thoughts during the raceback? "Well, it's insured."
Anyway, recently on a hike met heavy rain and gale winds. Pack was waterproof as advertised and experienced showed it to be. Happens that the seam liner in one area had deteriorated and driving rain forced water through which filled with several inches of water. Very soaked camera. M8 sent to NJ. Dead. "Not economical to repair."
Insurance came through with replacement, which, just a few days before Photok- - happens to be M9. Managed to make that a "P."
Anyway, recently on a hike met heavy rain and gale winds. Pack was waterproof as advertised and experienced showed it to be. Happens that the seam liner in one area had deteriorated and driving rain forced water through which filled with several inches of water. Very soaked camera. M8 sent to NJ. Dead. "Not economical to repair."
Insurance came through with replacement, which, just a few days before Photok- - happens to be M9. Managed to make that a "P."
MartinL
MartinL
There are costs to making any sort of insurance claim. First, you are paying the premium, then there are risks of future premiums going up. My very large deductible did not apply to the camera claim, and you can also be in a position of having to decide if it's worth making the claim at all. And fundamentally, insurance isn't supposed to be a good deal: otherwise lots more people would decide to die young or leave a lens on the subway. On the other hand, I've asked a few people who are out and about with very expensive gear and they've responded to me as if I'd exposed one of their personal bad behaviors---like do you floss twice a day? So, pay the premium as if you are just kissing off that cash. And if bad luck or foolishness comes your way you've saved yourself some grief.
nico
Well-known
OT: described by the ebay seller, after stating to be "not a camera expert", "as mint"?
BAck on topic: I asked right this morning to an insurance broker if there's some form of insurance for camera or similar gear but he was unware of (I didn't think nor did him about the homeowners insurance).
Anyway, I'm thinking about buying an ME/m9 but it would be difficult to me to buy it once again in case of damages or theft so before the purchase I must find a way to insure it ...
jasonrutter
Member
I think it is pretty important to carry some kind of insurance on my gear. I have a rider on my home owner insurance that cover my gear with a different deductible amount than my home. I've had it for years and have never needed it, but last week one of my camera bodies got pretty wet (X-Pro). Had liquid sloshing around in the eye piece. I was pretty happy to have that insurance since I can't afford to replace the body outright. I figure over time I will end up paying for it in premiums but that's a bit less emotionally distressing which makes my day to day much easier.
Beemermark
Veteran
Actually you only need the camera rider if you have collectable cameras and you want to assign a value to them. Otherwise I just carry regular household insurance that covers theft and damage. No extra charge except of course the deductible. And you want to make sure that your policy is full replacement value (which is a good idea regardless).
So years ago I put my thumb through an M4 curtain - covered. Not that long ago a thief made of with my M6, 50 Summilux, 35 Summicron and some other stuff. Even though the lenses were 40+ years old I got a brand new camera and lenses. Cost - my deductible. No change in premium and I have changed policy holders twice and the theft did nothing to my premium.
So years ago I put my thumb through an M4 curtain - covered. Not that long ago a thief made of with my M6, 50 Summilux, 35 Summicron and some other stuff. Even though the lenses were 40+ years old I got a brand new camera and lenses. Cost - my deductible. No change in premium and I have changed policy holders twice and the theft did nothing to my premium.
MartinL
MartinL
IMO, it's not the money (OK it is the money
but I only collected camera insurance once, and I have a gut-check once a month when I'm convinced I've left it (nope, it's on my shoulder) or somebody ripped it off (no, my wife picked it up because she doesn't trust me with it.)
nico
Well-known
... (OK it is the money
yes, definitely, it is the money for me ... but also the "monthly" gut-check is a good reason for me to have an insurance!
DtheG
Established
As my father, an underwriter, used to say: insurance is just another form of gambling. The bookies/insurers always win, that's why they are in business.
An insurance policy is a bet with the insurance company. The only difference between that and putting your money on a horse is that an insurance policy is a bet you would rather lose: that is, you should count yourself a winner if you never need to claim. So many people don't see it like that; they add up all the money paid in premiums and then see a reason to make a claim as an opportunity to get back all the money they have paid.
Insurance is for the unlikely losses that I really cannot afford: my house, a car accident (the third-party consequences not the car). Loosing a camera would be regretable but, finacially, not an unbearable loss. I don't insure my camera.
An insurance policy is a bet with the insurance company. The only difference between that and putting your money on a horse is that an insurance policy is a bet you would rather lose: that is, you should count yourself a winner if you never need to claim. So many people don't see it like that; they add up all the money paid in premiums and then see a reason to make a claim as an opportunity to get back all the money they have paid.
Insurance is for the unlikely losses that I really cannot afford: my house, a car accident (the third-party consequences not the car). Loosing a camera would be regretable but, finacially, not an unbearable loss. I don't insure my camera.
MartinL
MartinL
Of course conditions vary person-to-person, year-to-year. Lots of head-messing going on. Sick when damage was done; relieved when I remembered the insurance; delighted when I came out better than before the damage; guilty for feeling delighted. A possibly-preventable loss should hurt for a long time. But that's just me. Anyway, I keep a very high deductible on homeowners insurance and that lower rate more than pays for the camera rider. But there's no sensible economic metric that gets applied in these calculations.
coelacanth
Ride, dive, shoot.
I live in an apartment so don't have home insurance, but got renter's insurance with Allstate.
Camera equipments get basic coverage without scheduling against theft and other natural causes (storm, fire, etc) to the coverage limit, but not against accidental damage. Theft will be covered worldwide. By scheduling, there will be no deductible and they will be covered against disappearance/loss (say you dropped the camera from golden gate bridge). I have "replacement cost" coverage rather than "actual value" so they'll replace it with a new camera rather than paying out for depreciated value of M9/M8 at the time of loss.
I'm still debating if I should schedule it. I was quoted $167 per year for M9, MP, and 35mm Cron ASPH combined so I'd imagine one body only would be quite a lot cheaper than that.
Camera equipments get basic coverage without scheduling against theft and other natural causes (storm, fire, etc) to the coverage limit, but not against accidental damage. Theft will be covered worldwide. By scheduling, there will be no deductible and they will be covered against disappearance/loss (say you dropped the camera from golden gate bridge). I have "replacement cost" coverage rather than "actual value" so they'll replace it with a new camera rather than paying out for depreciated value of M9/M8 at the time of loss.
I'm still debating if I should schedule it. I was quoted $167 per year for M9, MP, and 35mm Cron ASPH combined so I'd imagine one body only would be quite a lot cheaper than that.