>not buying insurance for your 3000$ camera

>implying

>$3,000 camera
The entirety of my gear is worth maybe $900 max.

>>2908669
no one on here has a 3000$ camera

My gear cost me around 500 bucks
The market price is like 300 dollars.

File: P7130816.jpg (2MB, 1080x1440px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1440px

My body, zoom lens, and fast prime were $600 tops. I don't see a need to spend more than that, except maybe for an ultra wide.
If I was going to spend $3000 on a camera and more on lenses, you can bet it'll be insured and have an eye kept on it at all times.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>2908669
Because it's € 290.00 for 3 years.

Instead, I decided to take care of my stuff.

>>2908722
what do you use?

If you're really worried about damaging/losing your camera you spend too much on it.

>>2908729
Panasonic gh1, 14-45, 45 1.8
Might add a 45-175

File: 1466958657580.jpg (19KB, 235x193px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 235x193px

>He fell for the insurance Jew

This thread is just a meme overflow from the /gear/ thread. Just leave it be, it will go away.

I'm still paying off the 3k loan

I let my insurance go when I got out of pro photography a few years back, but I had a scare yesterday while shooting an event and now I'm really thinking of getting it again. (A small prime fell out of my bag and I didn't notice until an hour or two later, fortunately it was in a secure area that was only open to a few credentialed photogs and so I found it exactly where it'd dropped, thankfully undamaged too because it fell on soft dirt.)

>>2908754
bump

>>2908669
>only having $3k worth of gear
How do you even manage?

>>2908801
Just get it. If your gear is expensive its not worth it to constantly have to worry about it breaking / getting water damage.

If you have a decent amount of money into your gear fucking buy insurance god dammit, especially for rare and obscure shit.

I'm not saying anything, I'm just saying. If you can afford that kind of gear you can afford to insure it against at the very least theft.

I dropped the insurance on my stuff when I quit shooting for money and when it became cheaper and cheaper to replace. My RB67 outfit might be worth 500 bucks now........when I first acquired it, they were that much for just a body and lens.

To play Devil's Advocate though, a good strap and being diligent about where you go with your shit is more valuable and cheaper than any insurance scam.

>>2908837
3000$ is my the price of my camera (body)

>>2908840
didnt your stuff get stolen and you didnt have insurance?

>>2908840
Should just do both, no matter who you are a retard may run into you while you are shooting. Or you might accidentally drop your camera while reaching for it.

>>2908840
>a good strap and being diligent about where you go with your shit is more valuable and cheaper than any insurance scam.
That's like saying there's no need for auto insurance because "Dude just drive carefully lmao".

>>2908840
>I dropped the insurance on my stuff when I quit shooting for money
>when I quit shooting for money

WEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW lad. Do you just forget that you've been posting nonstop here for years?

File: photo2-c.jpg (42KB, 491x437px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 491x437px

>>2908856
/thread

>>2908856

I would bet my rig and everything in the trailer 90% of people on /p/ don't have cameras expensive enough to warrant insuring myself included.

>>2908898
>I would bet my rig and everything in the trailer

all $30 of it?

>>2908898
I have about $80,000 worth of cameras (mostly due to age/collectibility as well as high-end pro gear)

>>2908840
On the other hand, if you can afford good gear you can probably just afford to absorb the cost of the occasional damaged or lost piece. For most people the risk is pretty low, and the the only situation in which you're likely to lose all your gear at once is if your house is robbed or burns down, in which case your homeowners insurance should cover it. I don't see any compelling reason to insure my camera gear separately.

My camera bag has about $2,300 worth of equipment in it, no insurance, but I have thought about it.

If you contact State Farm a personal articles policy it cost $60 for a year for my $3000 in gear, though I think it's the same price even if you had $5000 according to what I found on Google.

I have thousands of dollars worth of gear but I reside in Japan as a US citizen and I will only be here for a couple years and my insurance company in the U.S. won't cover my shit here, when I buy a D810 next year, I better be fucking careful until i get back to the U.S.

>>2908912
its bc a PAP has a minimum of 5000 i think. HO protects your stuff when you are out of the house too. subject to a deductible and a few claims under HO they will raise rates or even drop you so its only worth if the numbers add up even then who knows how new rates are calc

File: 0deebly goncerned.png (98KB, 600x500px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 600x500px

>>2908837
I have $2.5k in 4 cameras and their lenses. if I buy this lens I've been eyeing, it'll be $3k

>>2908898
i thought everyone had an a7r ii and every other camera was just a meme?

I own a $20,000 Scarlet-W package and I have no insurance

>>2909168
id say video is a little different since you probably dont shoot alone or handheld.

>>2909017
>HO protects your stuff when you are out of the house too.

Very often they have a maximum for photo/video equipment.
Something ridiculously low like $1000.

I urge people to read the fine print before making any assumptions on insurance plans.
More of then than not it's full of loopholes.

>>2909182
That's true. You'd definitely need a pap if your gear was worth insuring

8k€ in gear, but I can't afford insurance. OTOH, to date, nothing's been lost or broken.

A while ago I was in the bank and they were doing the hard sell on household contents insurance. I mentioned my camera gear and was told that it wouldn't be covered (or my brothers guitars). They are items you take outside.

Any of you with expensive shit might want to check your policy. Quote from CAB:

>Household contents insurance policies do not usually cover personal possessions taken out of the home, for example, cameras, jewellery or
sports equipment. However, you may be able to get cover for such items by paying extra. This is known as all risks cover. There is usually an upper limit on the value of any single item.

>>2908716
I have my gear insured for $18,000

>>2909017

Makes sense, means I can go full frame and not spend a penny more on insurance I suppose.

But for me it's worth it for the piece of mind of traveling. I don't spend half the time worrying about my camera being in the car for a few moments, I don't have second thoughts about bringing my gear out in cities, etc.

If I got mugged and lost my 60D and 24-105 or whatever I have on I'd be pretty pissed and it would ruin a trip, with insurance it's just a sad inconvenience.

>>2908912
If they find even the smallest evidence that you've ever tried to make money using that gear, they won't pay.

>>2909219
Through who?

I'm looking for a decent insurance company. If they let me change policies (like just get out of country coverage only when I'm actually traveling instead of just having to continually pay for it during the life of the policy) that'd be extra awesome.

>>2910816

Yeah, I'm a hobbyist so that's fine.

I think I took $50 to do some lot shots for a family friend once.

>>2910836
That's cool, but I thought it beared mentioning because almost the moment you even just think about using that camera to make money, home owners/rental policies WILL NOT COVER THEM.