Taping over camera names/types

[emraphoto]

while photographing with the X100 in conflict areas i had to tape it up every day. keep dials and buttons from moving inadvertently. the amount of things to worry about was not going to include the dials on the cameras.

so yeah, i tape. for a variety of reasons.

 

[jsrockit]

If it says Leica or has a red dot thieves like the above are more likely to recognise good resale value.

Unless they are gear whore thieves, then Leicas are generally safe. People just don't know the brand. Nikon and Canon are the true targets.

 

[btgc]

Personally, I don't think hiding the names and /or logos makes any difference at all. If you are in a situation where theft is likely, it will happen regardless.

Why not write DO NOT STEAL on tapes - it could help!

 

[SuperUJ]

Unless they are gear whore thieves, then Leicas are generally safe. People just don't know the brand. Nikon and Canon are the true targets.

Taping Leica to avoid it from being stolen is probably not the primary reason for some folks here. Let's look at a different product below (admitting that cars and cameras are different used markets):

Here's the list of the 10 most stolen cars from all model years taken during 2013, according to the NICB, with total units cited:

Honda Accord, 53,995.
Honda Civic, 45,001.
Chevrolet Silverado, 27,809.
Ford F-150, 26,494.
Toyota Camry, 14,420.
Dodge/Ram Pickup, 11,347.
Dodge Caravan, 10,911.
Jeep Cherokee/Grand Cherokee, 9,272.


John

 

[Dante_Stella]

Tape has its uses, such as if you are in danger of gouging the big, featureless top plate of an M with a flash or finder foot. Or if that surface creates glare. Or if something about the way you carry the camera threatens unusual wear and tear. And I can sympathize with Emraphoto, having taped down the exposure comp dial of my X100 quite a few times.

OurManinTangier is right about this: people don't notice equipment; they notice the people carrying it. The more you act sneaky, the more they will become defensive.

Dante

 

[RichardPhoto]

I have tape on my M6 and my M8.

Contrary to what a lot of people think, I don't tape them to lessen the risk of theft. I doubt that is at all effective. So here are my reasons...

First reason:
I hate big bold logos on things. I think it's crass. For the same reason I don't buy clothes with brand names written all over them. Perhaps I'm just being overly British in my preference for an understated aesthetic. I would much prefer a more subtle logo such as the 'Hasselbald' on my Xpan. As mentioned above, the white on black logo really stands out.

Second reason:
Perhaps a contentious point... The main reason I tape my cameras is because I don't want to be bothered by tech-obsessed photographers.

If I want to indulge in a bit of pixel-peeping or tech-talk I'll head to the web once in a blue moon. What I don't want is some stranger bothering me mid-outing about 'M8 noise', 'Leica prices', 'the new Sony is better...', or other such utterly asinine topics.

I'm sure some of you are thinking "but how would a piece of tape stop that?". I don't know how, but it does. Some cameras just seem to attract these people. I think the Leica name is so well known and there are so many arguments on the internet about Leica that it's a topic these people want to discuss.



Just to be clear - I'm not saying that liking tech is wrong and please don't think I'm some uber miserable type. It's just not something I'm into. Same way I wouldn't want to discuss car models on a petrol station forecourt with a random stranger just because, say, we both owned Fords.

 

[Bill Clark]

I use tape when loading my mt 35mm cassettes. Years ago, I used tape for light cords before I started using Quantum flashes and Pocket Wizards. Now I only use the blue 3M tape for loading my 35mm cassetes.

The camera label on the camera, many times, was a way to have a conversation when folks would ask me. I looked at it as a way to get acquainted not a show off piece.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Thieves target and steal expensive lenses off cameras . . .

Dear Lynn,

Except that there's absolutely no evidence they target expensive lenses: this is a piece of fairly poor alarmist journalism about thieves nicking big, flashy lenses. Do you think they get out their price guides first? They steal it because they can.

Remember a simple truth: to a thief, an old Pentax costs the same as a new Leica, i.e. nothing. Opportunity is all.

The other example is no better. News crews are (a) often a confused rabble, fighting for position and (b) likely to have good kit. Again, nothing to do with taping.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . OurManinTangier is right about this: people don't notice equipment; they notice the people carrying it. The more you act sneaky, the more they will become defensive. . .

Dear Dante,

Perfectly observed and phrased!

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

Dear Lynn,

Except that there's absolutely no evidence they target expensive lenses: this is a piece of fairly poor alarmist journalism about thieves nicking big, flashy lenses. Do you think they get out their price guides first? They steal it because they can.

Remember a simple truth: to a thief, an old Pentax costs the same as a new Leica, i.e. nothing. Opportunity is all.

So you are saying old film cameras get stolen just as much a new digital DSLRs? I don't believe that for a second. Take this example of thievery...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YWaloz-Duw

You have to know something about the particular camera (where the lens release button is) in order to take the lens off a body this easily.

 

[Fraser]

So you are saying old film cameras get stolen just as much a new digital DSLRs? I don't believe that for a second. Take this example of thievery...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YWaloz-Duw

You have to know something about the particular camera (where the lens release button is) in order to take the lens off a body this easily.

I would also think that thieves operating at popular tourist areas don't see too many old cameras, but if they have the choice why steal something thats hard to sell on.

 

[Roger Hicks]

So you are saying old film cameras get stolen just as much a new digital DSLRs? I don't believe that for a second. Take this example of thievery...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YWaloz-Duw

You have to know something about the particular camera (where the lens release button is) in order to take the lens off a body this easily.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying exactly what I said:

1 It's opportunism

2 It costs the same to steal a Nikon as a Leica.

There are surprisingly few locations for lens release buttons, and even a fairly dim cutpurse can quite quickly learn how to operate them: press the button, and twist left or right. If left doesn't work, try right.

I really don't believe that they target the latest super-de-luxe IS f/2.8 instead of a cheapo bottom of the line lens that's about the same size and glitteriness.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Very common topic, I say.
But this time I'll reply slightly differently:

I did it on my Canon 500D aka Rebel t1i, right after I've seen this topic five or so years ago for first time.
I didn't do it with 5D later.
Perhaps, Rebel labels feels kind of cheap and with them covered camera looks more Pro, I say. 🙂

It was neat kit with black tape on labels and old little OM. Zuiko 25 3.5 in the lens mount.
And it was my last digital kit, before I went film only for street, candid photography with RF, scale focus cameras.

Actually, I also painted with black marker some white labels on my Oly XA. It was my breakthrough camera for better "street" photography.
This photo was taken before I blacked out ISO and aperture labels.

Cheers, Ko.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I would also think that thieves operating at popular tourist areas don't see too many old cameras, but if they have the choice why steal something thats hard to sell on.

If it's easy enough to steal, they'll steal ANYTHING. Why not? Again: It costs the same to steal a Nikon as a Leica.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dogberryjr]

Next step must be the lens.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/plaubel.htm

 

[kuuan]

Snapshot Skopar 4/25 on Sony A7 by Andreas, on Flickr

because I think with tape it rather attracts more, not less attention I shall take it off again, but actually I don't like the aesthetics of the big lettering that thus is covered

 

[Cameron]

A lot of interesting answers in this thread. Glad to see it's a mellow conversation, unlike some I've seen on different forums and websites about the same topic. People take taping, or lack of, very seriously for some reason...

As for the videos of the thieves stealing lenses, etc., no amount of tape is going to fix that. Thieves don't see price hanging around your neck, they see profit. A $100 50mm 1.8 is profit just as a 24-70mm L lens is. Tape isn't going to deter thieves. I have tape on my Nikon F100, and with tape on it, it just looks like a DSLR, just like it would without tape -- most thieves won't know the difference. I just prefer an all-black workhorse body without logos and fancy things showing. That's all.

Disclaimer: The photo in the original post is not my camera or photo.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

A few things:
I'll agree with Roger about thieves stealing cameras. A camera is a camera, some thieves may know the difference between a digital and a film camera but we all know that most thieves are idiots. Case in point: When my apartment in Jersey City was burgled, the perpetrator/s stole my Lowepro bag with 2 Nikon DSLRs, 3 lenses and some cards, then opened my dirty old Domke to reveal a Leica M4 with DR Cron as well as a Nikon SP with 5cm f/1.4 Nikkor. The thief left the old film cameras although each was worth more than the gear they stole. Meanwhile, they went into my housemate's room and stole her K1000 with 50mm f/1.4, a camera she was given and had sentimental value but would sell for $20 at a thrift store. Note: Both the Nikon DSLRs had the logo painted over in black. it did not render them invisible. Perhaps I should have used tape. I wonder if gaff tape has more invisibility power than electrical...

As for stealing expensive lenses vs. crappy lenses, I doubt there is any real case for it. The thief would probably steal any lens if they are going to be that bold. Show them a well used Noct-Nikkor against a pretty 55mm f/1.2 and they'll choose the shiny, not the user that is worth 10+ times more. It's all perception.

As for the taping itself, some logos look ugly or ostentatious. The big red dot on the Leica M4-P comes to mind. Then again, it's usually covered by a hand. I think the nicest logo is the simple "Nikon" on the front of the F2. I like the old "Canon" on older film bodies.

Really, if a working photographer doesn't want to advertise for their marque or isn't sponsored by them or the broadcaster doesn't want to feature it; it may be advantageous to tape over the logo. This is why we see that at sporting events, etc.

Phil Forrest

 

[Dralowid]

Just rub sunblock or sun tan cream over the lettering and much of it will disappear. Gives you something to do on holiday!

 

[jsrockit]

If it's easy enough to steal, they'll steal ANYTHING. Why not? Again: It costs the same to steal a Nikon as a Leica.

One reason I can think of is that if they cannot resell it for much, then it's not worth the risk. I think there are certainly the types that just steal anything they can, but I also think there are more sophisticated types that only steal when the risk is way outweighed by the reward.

I don't think thieves are going to be gear geeks and know about Noct Nikkors or whatever... but I do think they know what is easy to sell at times and that Nikon DSLR with large lens is a very easy sell. It is a mainstream camera that screams pro to people who don't know any better.