Does the cost of your camera influence your photo behavior? (Page 3): A photographer brings their camera.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A photographer brings their camera.

Gspeed Loc: Rhinebeck, NY

martinfisherphoto wrote:

It's a tool and goes where I go.. Several years ago I fell into a lake from a boat and it happened in a split second. About a $4000 investment went in with me. Cost about $1600 to repair as this type of damage was not covered. I brushed myself off and returned to the lake. Why would I show up to a job with inferior tools and leave the best tools at home. I purchased for the reason to get the job done with the best possible results.....

I take care with my D610 and have full replacement, no deductible rider, on my homeowner’s policy. Covered for loss, theft, damage, misplace, unknown disappearance…. That gives me piece of mind.

Gspeed Loc: Rhinebeck, NY

ecobin wrote:

I'm very careful with all of my gear. I don't think about what something cost me to determine what care I should impart.

Same.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Have always been one to take very good care of any of my devices, electronic or otherwise. From low end to high end, they (cameras/lenses/etc.) are all kept safely. I generally buy with intent to keep forever (my forever, anyway) but do sell a piece once in a while, and if I do sell I want the buyer to enjoy a well cared for item. Even my oldest cameras (and lenses, etc.) still look like they did they day I bought them, even those with many thousands of clicks. When out and about I protect them as well as I can, and actually have hurt myself protecting gear in a trail fall...camera and lens fine, me, big gash on head, bruises/abrasions, sore, etc.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

tcthome wrote:

I've loosened up a little this past year. But in the past, I wouldn't even change a lens out in the field. I would wait or walk back to do it inside my truck to keep the sensor clean. As far as stolen goes, I don't leave my equipment on the front seat for all to see but, it is insured to the point of an equal replacement of today's prices.

It can be cheaper (certainly over time) to have a second camera with a different lens (to save changing lenses) than to use expensive Pro or DIY sensor cleaning options.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Absolutely....but I treat all of my cameras with equal attention and I take additional measures to protect the pricey-stuff.......money is tight these days and I can't afford screw-ups. The older (vintage stuff) is even more cherished and not always replaceable,so I really pick & choose those shoots with great attention to details and circumstances,such as bad weather and dusty days. They are sacred items to me. Thanks for asking.

Bill 45

I am a die in the wool film camera person. So all my cameras are 40+ year old cameras. I am very carefully when using one. Stop and think what you are doing when using a camera. When I read about someone who pay $2,000 to $4,000 for a camera and have damage it; What?

BebuLamar

Yes! When I was in Vietnam and wanted to take some pictures of the Notre Dame of Saigon my brother said there are a lot of snatchers there so I brought a Pentax K1000 with some film instead.

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

It really depends…. If the camera is “something I’m bringing along just in case,” then a compact or bridge will usually do. If the venture is photography centric, I reach for the 5d2 and/or 7d2 with whatever lenses are need anticipated (plus a compact).

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

317tman wrote:

Only limitations i have is not going out in heavy rain as my camera is not weather proof and would not take it or expensive lenses in a canoe or kayak. I have left equipment at home because of weight and bulk.

If it’s a camera I take in a kayak I get a drop/spill warranty on it. I had a Panasonic G9 and Panasonic Leica 100-400 lens replaced from flipping a kayak. I have since gotten a specific camera for kayaking, a Sony RX10MIV, not because I’m afraid to take my Nikon and Olympus gear, (which both have much better weather sealing), in my kayak, but because I can get a 24-600mm effective zoom range with something that’s manageable in a kayak.

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

317tman wrote:

Only limitations i have is not going out in heavy rain as my camera is not weather proof and would not take it or expensive lenses in a canoe or kayak. I have left equipment at home because of weight and bulk.

I've never owned the really high-end equipment but I do buy what I believe to be very capable stuff. I am extremely careful with it since I want it to function over the long term.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

I'm more concerned with injuring myself than my camera gear these days. There are places I will not go because I am not as agile as I was 10 years ago.

monroephoto

I have thought of the possibilities of theft, but placed each expensive camera body and high-end lens under an insurance policy. Why? For the exact reason you raise. What good are they if I am constrained from using them? That said, a black roll of gaffers tape goes a long way to conceal the exact model of camera I shoot with. But the sight of the rig I use still prompts me to know where I am, try and shoot with a friend, (strength in numbers) and download shots taken each night on to a portable hard drive. The loss of the camera may not mean as much as the loss of the shots otherwise.

rwww80a Loc: Hampton, NH

YES, For my topside photography I use a D7200 with various lens. No problems, vaca or local. For underwater with a housing a D200 with zoom or macro and port, approx value with housing about $5000 replacement. Have not sprung for a housing and new ports for 7200 because of cost. Underwater housing companies also upgrade to make older equipment out of date, new sell it again.

Quixdraw Loc: x

rwww80a wrote:

YES, For my topside photography I use a D7200 with various lens. No problems, vaca or local. For underwater with a housing a D200 with zoom or macro and port, approx value with housing about $5000 replacement. Have not sprung for a housing and new ports for 7200 because of cost. Underwater housing companies also upgrade to make older equipment out of date, new sell it again.

Back in the early'60's my Dad had a primitive housing and would occasionally take his Leica M3 underwater in the Caribbean. I was always horrified, but the camera came through unscathed. I still have and use it. The only cameras I have taken underwater were purpose built.