Author Topic: Insurance? (Read 8345 times)

bosharpe · « **on:** April 05, 2010, 07:56 »

I'm looking into insurance at the moment to cover my (expensive) 5d MkII and a lens I'm buying (either the 24-104mm or 24-70mm). I've taken out insurance before on a medium format camera + light meter when I was a student but now I'm moving into the professional realms I'm once again going to cover my back.

What deals and experiences have any of you had when insuring your equipment & what should I be looking out for?

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2010, 08:04 »

I don't know if I'd worry about insurance just for a $2500 camera and a $1200 lens. Maybe you can easily add it onto your home policy or something.

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2010, 08:07 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 05, 2010, 08:04

I don't know if I'd worry about insurance just for a $2500 camera and a $1200 lens. Maybe you can easily add it onto your home policy or something.

We clearly don't all have your big bucks that that sort of loss wouldn't be a problem! Nice position to be in.
However, like you suggested, mine is covered under my home insurance.
Check your policy - it might be covered anyway, or it might have to be listed separately.
Anyway, many years ago, I had my camera bag lost/stolen (long story) in Brussels. My home insurer and my content insurer liaised behind my back (I claimed from both of them, but named the other on each form). The fact that the equipment was fully covered (apart from excess) on my home insurance and partly covered on the travel insurance seemed to mean that the full amount was covered (i.e. the excess on the home insurance seemed to be paid by the travel insurance, but I don't know how they divvied it up), and all the equipment was replaced, sourced from Jessops, who had an insurance branch at that time. I even got a much better lens than one of those which was stolen, because they didn't have the equivalent in stock.
Definitely worth the money - it's not that much extra onto my home insurance, although maybe we were unusual because we're birders long before I was a photographer, and were already used to having optics insured 'home or abroad, new-for-old.
I still take care of my stuff, because of the inconvenience of having them stolen (I know only too well what it's like when a piece of kit dies in the boonies), but not neurotically: it gets used and has to survive bumps as well as I do.

gostwyck · « **Reply #3 on:** April 05, 2010, 08:58 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 05, 2010, 08:07

We clearly don't all have your big bucks that that sort of loss wouldn't be a problem! Nice position to be in.
However, like you suggested, mine is covered under my home insurance.
Check your policy - it might be covered anyway, or it might have to be listed separately.

They say if you can afford to replace something then it's probably not worth insuring it. When I've checked out camera gear insurance in the UK, including for professional use and world-wide cover, the premium can be 10-15% of the equipment's value. Of course even then there's all sorts of caveats like if you're staying in a hotel then when not in use it must be deposited in a safety box, etc, etc. If you comply with all the requirements then there's very little chance of the gear being stolen but then it becomes more hassle than it is worth and the gear tends to get left locked up rather than taken out.

I've now bought a 500D + kit lens for use when I'm travelling or just out and about not specifically on a shoot. The cost was not much more than a year's insurance premium, the camera is a fraction of the weight and size of my 1Ds MkIII + L glass and, at 15MP, is easily capable of producing high quality images when shrunk down to 5MP (but still qualifying for Large size at IS). It's also less obvious that you are taking images for commercial use.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2010, 09:26 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 05, 2010, 08:07

Quote from: sjlocke on April 05, 2010, 08:04
I don't know if I'd worry about insurance just for a $2500 camera and a $1200 lens. Maybe you can easily add it onto your home policy or something.
We clearly don't all have your big bucks that that sort of loss wouldn't be a problem! Nice position to be in.
However, like you suggested, mine is covered under my home insurance.

Ha! I just meant that by the time you go to the cost and trouble of securing a policy, plus the cost of a deductible, after two or three years, you might have had enough to pay for the loss yourself anyways.

ShadySue · « **Reply #5 on:** April 05, 2010, 09:50 »

Quote from: sjlocke on April 05, 2010, 09:26

Quote from: ShadySue on April 05, 2010, 08:07
Quote from: sjlocke on April 05, 2010, 08:04
I don't know if I'd worry about insurance just for a $2500 camera and a $1200 lens. Maybe you can easily add it onto your home policy or something.
We clearly don't all have your big bucks that that sort of loss wouldn't be a problem! Nice position to be in.
However, like you suggested, mine is covered under my home insurance.

Ha! I just meant that by the time you go to the cost and trouble of securing a policy, plus the cost of a deductible, after two or three years, you might have had enough to pay for the loss yourself anyways.

Hmm I phoned my home insurer, told them what I'd got; they added it free onto this year's insurance and told me it would cost whatever pa after the next renewal. The cost pa wouldn't pay for the equipment in 20 years.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #6 on:** April 05, 2010, 09:55 »

Sure - making sure it is covered under your home/existing policy would be the sensible route.

le_cyclope · « **Reply #7 on:** April 05, 2010, 10:12 »

The first question my broker asked was if I had some revenue from my camera. If so, then my home insurance would not cover my gear...

It ended up with a 40$ (+/-) premium added to my home inurance to have a 10000$ coverage on all my gear at home and a 5000$ coverage while I'm out.

Definitly worth it!

Claude

FD · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2010, 03:44 »

Quote from: bosharpe on April 05, 2010, 07:56

I'm looking into insurance at the moment to cover my (expensive) 5d MkII and a lens I'm buying (either the 24-104mm or 24-70mm).

Off-topic: don't buy the 24-70 but buy the 24-104 instead. I saw full size images of both and they are equally sharp. I have the 24-70 and the range of 70 is just a bit too short for portraits. Moreover, it's very heavy and feels like your (light D5II) cam is out of balance when handheld. Ask Patrick and Lisa. I think Lisa has both.

gostwyck · « **Reply #9 on:** April 06, 2010, 05:43 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on April 06, 2010, 03:44

Off-topic: don't buy the 24-70 but buy the 24-104 instead. I saw full size images of both and they are equally sharp. I have the 24-70 and the range of 70 is just a bit too short for portraits. Moreover, it's very heavy and feels like your (light D5II) cam is out of balance when handheld. Ask Patrick and Lisa. I think Lisa has both.

You have to be kidding! The 24-70L is the best general purpose zoom lens that Canon make. If I had to start over buying equipment it would be the first item on the list. In my ideal world I'd like to have two high-quality camera bodies __ one of them would have the 24-70L tack-welded onto it and the other body for all the other lenses.

Read these reviews before you spend your money;

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=295&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

Phil · « **Reply #10 on:** April 06, 2010, 07:22 »

carefully check your home insurance if you go down this route, many exclude 'professional use' which can be whatever they define it as.

(I asked one last year and all was good, can up the premium to cover $15000 of camera gear, when I asked about professional use though the supervisor said it wasnt covered and that amount of gear and even individually my sony a900 would likely be classed as a 'professional use' camera whether I was professional or not.)

Phil · « **Reply #11 on:** April 06, 2010, 07:25 »

Quote from: Phil on April 06, 2010, 07:22

carefully check your home insurance if you go down this route, many exclude 'professional use' which can be whatever they define it as.

(I asked one last year and all was good, can up the premium to cover $15000 of camera gear, when I asked about professional use though the supervisor said it wasnt covered and that amount of gear and even individually my sony a900 would likely be classed as a 'professional use' camera whether I was professional or not.)

the company i've with though (for all my insurance) doesnt care but it is worth checking

bosharpe · « **Reply #12 on:** April 06, 2010, 09:08 »

Quote from: FD-amateur on April 06, 2010, 03:44

Quote from: bosharpe on April 05, 2010, 07:56
I'm looking into insurance at the moment to cover my (expensive) 5d MkII and a lens I'm buying (either the 24-104mm or 24-70mm).
Off-topic: don't buy the 24-70 but buy the 24-104 instead. I saw full size images of both and they are equally sharp. I have the 24-70 and the range of 70 is just a bit too short for portraits. Moreover, it's very heavy and feels like your (light D5II) cam is out of balance when handheld. Ask Patrick and Lisa. I think Lisa has both.

hmm I think you are right in some respects. The 24-70mm is faster and by all accounts better image quality but the kit lens does have IS which suits me because I'll be doing a fair amount of handheld work.

cdwheatley · « **Reply #13 on:** April 06, 2010, 09:35 »

Quote from: bosharpe on April 06, 2010, 09:08

Quote from: FD-amateur on April 06, 2010, 03:44
Quote from: bosharpe on April 05, 2010, 07:56
I'm looking into insurance at the moment to cover my (expensive) 5d MkII and a lens I'm buying (either the 24-104mm or 24-70mm).
Off-topic: don't buy the 24-70 but buy the 24-104 instead. I saw full size images of both and they are equally sharp. I have the 24-70 and the range of 70 is just a bit too short for portraits. Moreover, it's very heavy and feels like your (light D5II) cam is out of balance when handheld. Ask Patrick and Lisa. I think Lisa has both.

hmm I think you are right in some respects. The 24-70mm is faster and by all accounts better image quality but the kit lens does have IS which suits me because I'll be doing a fair amount of handheld work.

I switched from 24-105 to 24-70. Agree it's a better lens for a lot of reasons. Lack of IS hasn't been a problem.

trek · « **Reply #14 on:** April 06, 2010, 10:34 »

I'm not so worried about equipment coverage but I may want to buy liability and e & o if I were to go full time and start working with models, stylists, locations and permits.

A past thread said TCP was a good company. Anyone here use them? What do you guys pay for liability and e & o? Are there additional fees for additional insures certs (for location rentals and permits)?

Thanks

RT · « **Reply #15 on:** April 06, 2010, 10:34 »

Re insurance, if you don't need insurance for commercial work or shooting models I'd consider what the others have said about actually needing it based on your own circumstances. But if you do need insurance the best company I found in the UK is Morgan Richardson who do a photographic policy that pretty much covers everything, sorry if you're not in the UK but you haven't mentioned where you are based.

Caz · « **Reply #16 on:** April 06, 2010, 11:12 »

Quote from: Phil on April 06, 2010, 07:22

carefully check your home insurance if you go down this route, many exclude 'professional use' which can be whatever they define it as.

(I asked one last year and all was good, can up the premium to cover $15000 of camera gear, when I asked about professional use though the supervisor said it wasnt covered and that amount of gear and even individually my sony a900 would likely be classed as a 'professional use' camera whether I was professional or not.)

Definately. I used to have my equipment on my home insurance, until I asked them if they covered professionals (they didn't) and what their definition of professional was (anyone making money by selling their images). So a two second Google search of my name would have invalidated the insurance. I also feel more protected having public liability insurance, so if I drop a light stand on a model's head I won't lose my house. And, some locations I've hired required me to have public liability insurance.

FD · « **Reply #17 on:** April 06, 2010, 22:23 »

off-topic

Quote from: gostwyck on April 06, 2010, 05:43

You have to be kidding! The 24-70L is the best general purpose zoom lens that Canon make.

I read all the reviews before deciding and they gave the 24-70 a slight advantage in borderline conditions (full open etc..) and also sharpness. I was just commenting about convenience (weight) since an all round lens like that you will take around. For studio it doesn't matter that much since I assume everybody shoots by monopod by now. The 70 limitation is annoying for cropped portraits though. I plan to buy a Macro 100mm later this year so that should solve the problem.

bosharpe · « **Reply #18 on:** April 09, 2010, 09:27 »

Quote from: RT on April 06, 2010, 10:34

Re insurance, if you don't need insurance for commercial work or shooting models I'd consider what the others have said about actually needing it based on your own circumstances. But if you do need insurance the best company I found in the UK is Morgan Richardson who do a photographic policy that pretty much covers everything, sorry if you're not in the UK but you haven't mentioned where you are based.

I do live in the UK so I'll check Morgan Richardson out. I was with e&l insurance before so I'll compare.

I'm not going to splash out on the 24-70mm I've decided. More like:

35mm f1.4L
85mm f1.8
24-105mm

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Insurance? (Read 8345 times)

bosharpe

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

gostwyck

Sean Locke Photography

ShadySue

Sean Locke Photography

le_cyclope

FD

gostwyck

Phil

Phil

bosharpe

cdwheatley

trek

RT

Caz

FD

bosharpe

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors