Some thoughts on insuring camera gear

[bmattock]

I have shared this link a number of times before, but it's a really good one:

http://www.missminimalist.com/2010/05/nothing-to-steal/

I'm not yet at her level, but my camera collection is more Zenit than Zeiss; more about emotional appeal (to me, anyhow) than chasing after The Best stuff.

Every so often, I sift through my possessions looking for items which might have decent resale value but which I'm not enjoying, or in some cases, barely even remember buying. I once went on a multi-year selling frenzy and it was like owning a magic sofa: Every time I reached under the cushions, I found more $100 bills!

A few years back, finances forced me to sell some gear. Much of it sold for decent prices, it was a great help in a time of need. However, I quickly discovered not all buyers are decent people. I did a lot of refunding of money, including clearly false claims - it's a losing battle to argue about it. In one decided to take the item back, and it wasn't the item I shipped. In the end it all worked out ok, but I no longer sell kit. I'll keep it, donate it, or bin it first. People are awful in enough cases to put me off it for good.

 

[willie_901]

Dear Willie,

All completely irrelevant. We're talking about camera insurance, not sunglasses, roofs, jewellery or Porsches.

I have more cameras than I need, I most certainly wouldn't need (or even necessarily want) to replace all of them, even in the unlikely event that I lost the lot.

Cheers,

R.

I disagree.

The type of asset doesn't matter. The risk assessment calculations remain the same. The math scales linearly.

What does matter is ratio of the potential economic loss to the total available economic assets.

In the reference I cited the utility of money is described as exponential function.(1) If you only have $1000 then a $300 loss is within a highly curved (significant) utility region. But if you have $100,000, a $300 loss in a nearly linear region of that exponential function. In the former case, paying $10 (1% of the assets) premium to protect 33% those assets makes sense. No one should pay $10 to protect 0.3% of $100,000 in assets.

In the case of not needing to replace the assets (in your case – numerous cameras you don't need or wouldn't want) the asset values are zero. No one insures assets with zero value.

1. Economists describe this as the diminishing marginal utility of money.

 

[rbiemer]

Nice to "see" you round here, Bill!
Your post is well put and well taken, I think.
Have had my own, mostly positive, experience with renter's insurance.
Posted about it here a little but the re-cap is: was living in an apartment with my brother, one of our neighbors lit their couch on fire--too much booze and they dropped a joint or a cigarette in their couch while passing out. No one hurt and our apt was not damaged by the fire but was extensively damaged by water. Insurance company said, "of course we'll cover your losses. Just send us receipts for everything you're claiming."
Thankfully my brother is pretty anal about stuff like this and we did have receipts for every major thing we owned. I was working away from home at the time and so had almost all my pile of cameras, etc with me. So didn't claim for any of that. I did, though, have all my negatives in a file cabinet and those were soaked. I recovered about half, the rest were a big lump of paper and film and I couldn't separate the last of 'em.
In the end, the insurance company wrote us a check, we moved to another apt and were able to replace the stuff. Monetarily, it was fine. Thankfully nothing really irreplaceable--my brother or his cat--was lost.
The lesson reinforced there, for us, was as you suggest to look at the coverage and decide ahead of time if the costs and coverage are correct for us or not.
Last fall we bought a house and our realtor tried to just have us go with the minimu insurance to satisfy the mortgage company "it cheaper, you know." And was a bit surprised when we decided to actually talk to the agent and make sure our insurance was going to cover what we wanted as well as meet the minimum required. In the end, our insurance is very slightly more expensive but we are covered enough beyond the minimum that if something happens again, we'll not lose much sleep.

Of course, the things I value the most are stuff that money won't fix--I have my grandfather's Argus C3 and if that were lost, I'm not getting another one, for example.

Rob

 

[Roger Hicks]

I disagree.

The type of asset doesn't matter. The risk assessment calculations remain the same. The math scales linearly.

What does matter is ratio of the potential economic loss to the total available economic assets.

In the reference I cited the utility of money is described as exponential function.(1) If you only have $1000 then a $300 loss is within a highly curved (significant) utility region. But if you have $100,000, a $300 loss in a nearly linear region of that exponential function. In the former case, paying $10 (1% of the assets) premium to protect 33% those assets makes sense. No one should pay $10 to protect 0.3% of $100,000 in assets.

In the case of not needing to replace the assets (in your case – numerous cameras you don't need or wouldn't want) the asset values are zero. No one insures assets with zero value.

1. Economists describe this as the diminishing marginal utility of money.

Still irrelevant. I was talking about whether you (or I) would replace all of the camera gear we own -- which stands as a question whether we carry our own insurance or buy it in. Your contorted mathematics and misplaced attempts at defining asset values are nothing to do with that.

Consider also that like many on this forum I own quite a lot of cameras and very few cars.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Calzone]

In my case, less a collection, more an accumulation of items which held or still hold my interest. A harmless pasttime at worst. Certainly doesn't get in the way of my committing photography from time to time.

Bill,

Plus-one.

It does seem though that many of my cameras are either notable condition, rare, or novel, but this accumulation was really about being a patient buyer and not paying crazy premiums.

Kind of incidental any collectability or value added. Took a long time to assemble what a friend calls a "Camera Museum."

Perhaps bonding and sentimental value is the most real.

Still getting back to Roger's point: I don't really need so many cameras.

Cal

 

[bulevardi]

I have no expensive pro gear, I don't need insurance.
I try to shoot good images with consumer gear.

It's same with guitars for me, e.g. a $ 500 will do the trick for me, with a $ 5.000 I wouldn't play better, the sound could be better though... But I have no pro ambitions there neither.
Mostly products won't get so much better from a certain price range. But that's another discussion. Don't mean to go off-topic here.


To get back into insurances:
I have a good DSLR, and I admit I dislike to take it out at night in bad neighbourhoods where you get robbed on the streets.
For this reason, I bought a cheap second hand RF. If it gets stolen, I'm not lost that much money.
And you probably get robbed faster when you're using a fancy modern digital camera, instead of using an old second hand analog camera. Or is it jus the idea.

I'm currently shooting photos in a neighbourhood where some people I know don't want to walk through in daytime.
I knew a guy who walked that district often, 15 years ago, he did karate and bodybuilding, a quite tough guy, but even he felt unsafe and carried pepperspray with him.

Anyway, I'm doing night shots there now with a cheap camera and I feel quite relaxed, even with weird people passing around me every now and then.
I'm conditioned already and aware of where and when drug dealers hang out.
I recently wanted to shoot on a special location and went there on 4 different times to be able to shoot it 'safe'.
Tip: dealers are still in their bed at 7 AM.
I know I can just avoid these risks or dangers, but I feel attracted to these moods and environments for some reason. Want to capture it on photo.

 

[bulevardi]

Still wanted to add that my health is more worth than all my cameras all together.

If I get robbed or threatened, I have no problem in losing my gear, as long as they don't stab or hurt me. Better living without a camera than continuing life in a wheelchair.