Camera equipment buying woes

[dogbert]

<p>The general rule of insurance is insure for low probability high impact events. ie house burning down, burglary of home contents, health insurance for major illness, car insurance where you risk causing expnsive damage to yourself or others for which you will be liable.<br>

For possible small losses (and small has to be judged relative you your yearly income or wealth) it is better to self insure, ie just wear any possible loss.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>I recognise that both terminology and practice are likely to differ as between the UK and the US, but in UK terms what you are considering buying sounds like "extended warranty" rather than "insurance". Typically, the manufacturer's warranty runs for a year and covers repair/replacement if the equipment proves to be defective during that period. An extended warranty provides similar cover for a further period, typically two further years. Neither a manufacturer's warranty nor an extended warranty covers loss or damage through accidental causes or theft.</p>

<p>Extended warranties are a VERY BAD DEAL in most circumstances, for several reasons. The first is that they are grossly overpriced in actuarial terms, and the reason why retailers are so keen to sell them is that they share a very large profit with the company actually providing the extended warranty. The second is that many purchasers of extended warranties who found that they did actually need to try to invoke them, then discovered that the "small print" turned out to contain so many get-out clauses, and the companies were so obstructive, that they did not get the service they thought they were paying for.</p>

<p>I would never consider buying an extended warranty on anything, and certainly not on photographic equipment, and I advise you to do the same.</p>

<p>Although extended warranty is technically a type of insurance, what is usually understood by insurance is a very different matter. Commonly, it is a renewable annual contract (and is very unlikely to run for more than a year at a time), and covers you for loss or damage under defined circumstances (for example, theft from an unlocked motor vehicle, and war/civil disturbance/terrorism risks are almost always excluded, and premiums for professional use are typically much higher than for amateur use). It does NOT cover wear and tear or manufacturing defects, and so is complementary to any kind of warranty or guarantee. If you feel you need insurance, then you need it from when you walk out of the shop with your new purchases. There are a number of different bases for insurance, including actual or agreed value or like-for-like replacement, and it is important to make sure that you understand exactly what type of cover you are buying when you compare premium rates.</p>

<p>Whether or not you need insurance is a matter for you, and involves striking a balance between the cost of premiums and the likelihood and impact of loss. For most amateur photographers high-end camera kit is a major "capital" purchase, and not something you would want to have to replace in an unplanned way, so insurance is worthwhile. If you have house insurance then it can be cost-effective to include your equipment on that, making sure that you are covered for use of the equipment outside the home and that you are not under-insured either in total or through a value limit on any one item.</p>

<p>I hope this helps you to disentangle what seems to be some confusion in your own post and a number of other posts on this thread, although some posters are clearly well aware of the difference.</p>

[alexander_c1]

<p>All very good advice. Again...thank you all. I will let you know the outcome of this.</p>

[dave_holland]

<p>I agree with most in the group, don't buy the insurance, pay yourself the premiums and 'insure yourself'.<br>

Also, I find it unusual that you will pay big bucks for the 50 1.2 but you accept a slower, variable aperture lens for the long side. Remember that fast glass is particularly useful for longer lenses, since shutter speed needs to be proportionately higher to overcome camera shake for longer lenses. Therefore I suggest you drop the 50 down to the 1.4, and save a grand. Then consider swapping your long zoom for the 70-200 2.8 (preferably) or 4. If cash is short then go for the non IS.</p>

[alexander_c1]

<p>Hi Dave.</p>

<p>Good observation. I already own the 70-200 4L (non IS) which I will use mostly with my 40D. I don't do that much outdoor photography, mostly indoor in low light therefore I feel it a need to spend some dough on that 50 1.2 I am getting the 100-400 to add an additional 200mm to my zoom range.</p>

<p>I'm still waiting on my insurance agent's call. Will give her a few and will follow up with her.</p>

[les_lammers]

<p>"Bob - I called my homeowners insurance agent and asked her about this. <strong>She told me that theft of ANY item in my home is included </strong>so if this ever happend I am covered (knock on wood that it won't). <strong>But, she wasn't sure about accidental damage</strong>. She said she will call me back by the end of the day with an answer.</p>

<p>Get it in writing from the agent. There may be limits on camera equipment for theft. Accidental damage is not covered by the HO policy. Contents...like cameras..are covered for damage by named perils. Accidents are not one of the perils.</p>

<p>It sounds like you are looking at the Mack Diamond warranty...I would pass on that...read the 'fine print'. There is a lot of 'coverage' that is at 'their discretion'.</p>

<p>You are spending a good bit of $$$ and DSLR's are theft targets. *I* would just be sure the gear is covered for theft <strong>away </strong>from your residence.</p>

[alexander_c1]

<p>Just heard back from the agent. Accidental damage isn't covered, only theft. So if someone breaks into my house and steals my camera gear my homeowner's insurance will replace it full cost providing that I can submit the receipts of purchase.</p>

<p>Now I will have to make the decision on whether or not to buy the "extra" protection. As I stated in my first post...I am not clumsy and take extra extra extra care of my gear. I'm leaning towards insuring the kit but not the two lenses and the flash. But, I am uncertain. I'll report back after I've made my decision/purchase.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>H. Posner wrote: <em>You may also want to check your credit card -- some cards add additional coverage to one degree or another. </em></p>

<p>Yes indeed. Have a look at the fine print. You may be covered for a few weeks or so. You may be in a better position to make a rational decision about insurance after the initial sticker-price shock is over.</p>

<p>Getting a rider on home insurance will save you $$ you pay on your premium. However be aware that, if you drop your gear in your drink and make a claim, your insurance rates will go up and you'll be paying them back. Unlike a separate insurance policy, you can't discontinue coverage after you receive your claim - you'll still want your house and contents insured, right? So, no matter how you look at it, the house always wins.</p>

[eco_foto]

<p>The only thing I really worried about happening to my gear was theft,so I made a hiding spot in my home and stash it there!however usually my equipment is always with me!Do what makes you feel comfortable & get on to the joy of the photography!</p>

[15sunrises]

<p>Pretty monstrous investment after only a year with the 40D. What exactly is it preventing you from doing right now? If you're snapping shots at parties, I'd definitely recommend getting some kind of insurance, you never know what might happen.</p>

[alexander_c1]

<p>Hi Dave.</p>

<p>Perfectly happy with my 40D. Works just fine. I used a friend's 5D Mark II and fell in love with it. The higher ISO range, full frame etc. </p>

[15sunrises]

<p>I think in these kinds of 'social' environments it will definitely be better to get the extra protection. Even though you are very very careful with your gear, there's a lot of people out there who are clumsy, could fall into you, who knows. If you're already dropping this much cash, it might be worth it simply for the peace of mind.</p>

[alexander_c1]

<p>I hear you. That is why I am leaning towards getting the insurance on the kit ONLY.</p>