Walking around with a M9 (or any other expensive camera)

Peter Wijninga said:
I am a bit surprised by the number of members placing so much trust in their insurance policy. Have you ever claimed a lost Leica M9+Leica lens? You may rest assured that your insurance company will challenge your claim...and better be sure you've actually read the fine print of your policy. Besides, if and when you happen to lose your Leica M9+Leica lens, in let's say Ban Me Thuot, in the Vietnamese Highlands, the first thing you'll need is a police report....good luck!
Click to expand...

My insurance is a special rider on my home policy, with every camera and lens itemized. All is covered at the full value that I determined and that is specified in the policy, and covers ALL circumstances...theft, loss, damage...even as a result of my own stupidity. About $300/yr for over $20 thousand in gear.

I don't worry about a thing, except the hassle of buying new stuff if anything needs replacement.

Jeff
 
I have been in the same dilemma as the OP. However, I still carry my M with me wherever I go but I leave the other expensive part to my kit at the house depending on where I am going. There is no need to take the noctilux out when you are going to certain places with the M9 when a summicron will do the job just fine. That allows me to have some peace of mind.

For the longest, I have felt I too needed an insurance policy of some sort other than renters insurance. However, I told myself, as long as I play things smart I should be ok. I know that is risky but so far so good.

My gear stays in pelican cases. When I travel or when I get in the car. The 1510 for the air and a smaller one for the car and such. That is my insurance policy. These allow me to not worry about bumps and bruises, water damage, etc. and then I can pull the camera out and use it.

When you have $12000 around your neck, shoulder or wrist risk-management definitely comes into play, at least for me.

My solution, a black dot, gaffers tape and a beater summicron.
 
Lauffray said:
Surprised to see this many people insure their cameras. I haven't even thought about it (which may sound silly). Where and who insures your cameras/lenses ?
I have been getting nervous lately about travelling very far and for long periods of time with an expensive camera+lens
Click to expand...

Make sure the insurance is for damage too. The chance of damaging your camera, possibly beyond repair, is a magnitude larger than the chance of it being stolen.
 
Last edited:
Concur with Jaap. I have an all in insurance, as long as I can prove that I have been reasonably careful I am covered.

Furcafe, you are right about photo opportunities when it is late and boozy, I have my little S90 for that :)
 
Nakedcellist:

I have an M8 and likely will have an M9 before too long. I would feel just like you IF I didn't have it all insured on a special policy. If any goes wrong with it-- or my lenses--I get the purchase value back. This frees me completely, so I don't stress about it. This all said, I am still very careful with my equipment and have never had a problem. Some would say that means I don't need the insurance policy. But, for the peace of mind and for all the "what if?" scenarios, it is well worth it for me.
 
Jeff S said:
My insurance is a special rider on my home policy, with every camera and lens itemized. All is covered at the full value that I determined and that is specified in the policy, and covers ALL circumstances...theft, loss, damage...even as a result of my own stupidity. About $300/yr for over $20 thousand in gear.

I don't worry about a thing, except the hassle of buying new stuff if anything needs replacement.

Jeff
Click to expand...

I don't think Peter is referring to the terms of coverage, but rather the process the insurance company goes through to respond to a claim of loss or damage. All insurers use adjusters who reconcile the loss/damage claim to a final payment, the amount of which may differ from what you believe you're entitled. Insurers differ as to the degree of diligence and pressure they exert in the loss adjustment process. Some fight, others relent. The problem is that it's hard to know how a particular insurer on a particular line of coverage and particular claim will respond.

One thing to note, Jeff, if you haven't already addressed it. The policy rider you describe sounds like it's predicated on reported value. Be sure that those values reflect replacement value and are updated annually or even more often, if necessary. You could find yourself with a claim, say, for a stolen Leica lens your value rendition sets at $2,000 that at the time of loss would require $3,000 to replace.
 
Last edited:
I think the sense of fear the OP mentioned is valid, and I'm grateful that he felt he could discuss it here.

I won't ever buy an M9 or some other equally expensive camera. It seems somehow decadent or politically suspect to concentrate wealth in mundane objects. That's just my left-wing bias; I'm very happy for anyone who owns an M9, and wish you happy shooting with it wherever and whenever you like.
 
Think about it this way:

Statistically, it is much more likely that you total a car than that your M9 is stolen. Nobody worries about that when spending more than US 7k on a car.

If you can afford the M9, it also means that you can afford to replace it. Insure and enjoy, don't worry, is my advice. If you cann't, than the M9 is the wrong toy for you - sorry to be blunt.

Roland.
 
retnull said:
I think the sense of fear the OP mentioned is valid, and I'm grateful that he felt he could discuss it here.

I won't ever buy an M9 or some other equally expensive camera. It seems somehow decadent or politically suspect to concentrate wealth in mundane objects. That's just my left-wing bias; I'm very happy for anyone who owns an M9, and wish you happy shooting with it wherever and whenever you like.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty far-left myself, but look at it from this perspective - if you are serious about a craft or art, whether it is photography or carpentry, you should not think twice about investing in good tools . If you buy a good camera and use it frequently, you have done nothing to be ashamed of. I don't see building contractors buying off-brand tools to work with.

On the other hand, if you buy an m9 just to show off, then you need to be sent to a reeducation camp. ;-)

Randy
 
MCTuomey said:
I don't think Peter is referring to the terms of coverage, but rather the process the insurance company goes through to respond to a claim of loss or damage. All insurers use adjusters who reconcile the loss/damage claim to a final payment, the amount of which may differ from what you believe you're entitled. Insurers differ as to the degree of diligence and pressure they exert in the loss adjustment process. Some fight, others relent. The problem is that it's hard to know how a particular insurer on a particular line of coverage and particular claim will respond.

One thing to note, Jeff, if you haven't already addressed it. The policy rider you describe sounds like it's predicated on reported value. Be sure that those values reflect replacement value and are updated annually or even more often, if necessary. You could find yourself with a claim, say, for a stolen Leica lens your value rendition sets at $2,000 that at the time of loss would require $3,000 to replace.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Mike, but I'm well aware of all the issues, and understand full well how my policy and claims process works. All valuables, even beyond camera gear, are re-valued on a regular basis.

I pay more for integrated "premier" coverage for all of my insurance needs, but it's well worth it. Bottom line, as I said, I don't worry one bit about my gear.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
retnull said:
I think the sense of fear the OP mentioned is valid, and I'm grateful that he felt he could discuss it here.

I won't ever buy an M9 or some other equally expensive camera. It seems somehow decadent or politically suspect to concentrate wealth in mundane objects. That's just my left-wing bias; I'm very happy for anyone who owns an M9, and wish you happy shooting with it wherever and whenever you like.
Click to expand...

Like others who think of themselves as being on the left, I'll call you out on this one.

First, what on earth is a 'mundane object'? How is a Leica any more mundane than a lathe or a locomotive?

Second, if you do not want to see wealth concentrated in any way in objects that are not in state hands, there are only two possibilities.

One is very heavy taxation-- more than has ever proven possible in any society -- which would stop it being concentrated in anyone's hands (except the nomenklatura, where 'wealth' is demonstrated as 'what you can buy with the money you have', rather than 'how much money you have').

The other is for the wealthy man to diffuse his wealth by buying lots of different cheap rubbish instead of a few things of higher quality.

Which are you advocating?

On top of all this, there is the question of what constitutes 'wealthy'. Most people on this forum have enough money to do such things as keeping a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs, and to put food on the table. Outside the US, most of them can afford medical care too. The rest is luxury.

Living within one's means -- even, straitening one's life within those means -- may enable one person to afford an M9, where another chooses to spend the money on (as it might be) Nike trainers, new motor cars on a frequent basis, or even cigarettes: my dear late great-grandmother, who joined the Party in 1917 and some 50 years later was cremated with the Red Flag over her coffin and the local Party Secretary reading the eulogy, was a ferocious smoker. At GBP 7 for 20 cigarettes, a 40-a-day habit pays for an M9 in a year...

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
scottwallick said:
Through USAA, I have a 'Valuable Personal Property' policy that covers my M9 and most of my lenses. I also have renters insurance through USAA as well. An excellent company BTW.
Click to expand...
Same here. I have my M8 and 4 Leica lenses insured through USAA. I didn't bother to get my Canon stuff insured. If I loose it I loose it.

I don't agree with those of you who say no one recognizes a Leica except other Leica users. A lot of people know the brand and know that Leica cameras are expensive. That still wouldn't stop me from carrying my Leica to most places that I visit. But I am cautious.
 
I agree with Roger here. To this I would like to add: I am far from wealthy, I had to work and save up to buy an M9. Furthermore, I am more and more doing paid photography gigs, so it is not only a hobby anymore.

And what is mundane? Some people own cars more expensive than that, and I chose not to own a car. To me, the camera is more important, it is something I am passionate about and will use probably every day.

I have worked with people in the financial industry, who bought 10.000 euro watches and collected porsches. I had an acquaintance who had two leicas (one gold plated) and a Hasselblad, but never took photos. I will use my camera and possibly even earn a bit of my living with it.
 
nakedcellist said:
I agree with Roger here. To this I would like to add: I am far from wealthy, I had to work and save up to buy an M9. Furthermore, I am more and more doing paid photography gigs, so it is not only a hobby anymore.

And what is mundane? Some people own cars more expensive than that, and I chose not to own a car. To me, the camera is more important, it is something I am passionate about and will use probably every day.

I have worked with people in the financial industry, who bought 10.000 euro watches and collected porsches. I had an acquaintance who had two leicas (one gold plated) and a Hasselblad, but never took photos. I will use my camera and possibly even earn a bit of my living with it.
Click to expand...


Congrats on having the vision to save for and actually go for the M9! You are to be commended for that.:)

Somehow I think it strange that some people bitch and groan about the "expensive Leica M9", not giving a thought to the equally expensive Nikon and Canon DSLR's, or the amount of money spent on gasoline during the course of a year, or the depreciation of that expensive car, or my all-time favorite, eating out every night.:p

Leica cameras are a lot less expensive than cars and motorcycles! And, I hear, women...:D, but I am a lucky sob with the perfect wife for me, so I can't say anything about that particular topic.

Go for it and take lots of pictures. Life is too short. And start saving for the S2, the really expensive Leica camera.
 
I do have a question though... do some of us frequent areas where mugging is a real possibility? Or is this just an over-precautinary feeling?

In my little corner of the world, it is a rare accident that I wind up in a neighborhood that is undesirable, and I have worked as a Director of Community Development, Building Official, Code Enforcement Director, and many other positions in local government including programs with the local law enforcement offices to demolish crack houses and such. In my own personal life, I don't frequent these areas, not even on documentaries.:eek:

Must be that a lot of folks do and if that is the case, I think I might be more concerned about health and life as well.:(
 
It's your money , you're allowed to spend it any way you see fit without having to feel guilty or explain it to anyone. But you knew that . The M9-P is a really sweet camera.
 
Quite. If you buy a new Ford Focus, 1.6 (something modest), you will lose in depreciation in under two years what a M9 is worth. So a person can buy the used car and the M9. I don't see either the person choosing this route, or the new Focus, being decadent or throwing wealth about in an obscene fashion, do you? If you do, then living in a carboard box (preferably without clothes) is about the only course that offers sufficient chastisement for the unwelcome privilege of having the option of living otherwise.

On this subject, should Salgado have felt bad about shooting the Sahel using a large spread of Leica R and M equipment, or was that OK because his politics made it acceptable? Would some feel more comfortable had be used Nikon equipment, you know, because it would have been more in sympathy with his subjects?

Back on topic, I would not let the risk of loss affect your decision. I spent years in Afghanistan with a bag of Leica gear (uninsured, after all, can you imagine the premium for a 'war zone'?) and had no problems. I have used mine all over NY, London etc as well. I am careful and very aware of what is going on around me and I take normal precautions, not just for my camera, but the credit cards and other things that could be taken. Just switch on and take care (particularly when your guard might fall, like in hotels, B&Bs, hostels, restaurants etc) and enjoy a wonderful camera! Just make sure something is always well anchored to your body (straps around neck, wrist etc). I also use outer layers to conceal my camera or make it less accessible sometimes.

The comments about riding on the back of household insurance are spot on. Some offer far better rates than specialist insurers, who would want more for my camera gear alone (by a mile) then it costs to insure my entire household contents (including cameras when not in Afghanistan).
 
Last edited:
Not so sure about the adding on to the household insurance. I think it covers less, although it does cover theft, but specialist camera insurance covers more. For world wide coverage I pay 2.3% of the value and have a deductible of 200 EUR and a deductible of 250 EUR in case I dropped or banged/scratched the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom