$1k 4 year "pro" protection plan for $10k camera? (Page 2): But the camera is worth most in the first five years, and its insurance, the negation of a larger gamble. And after five...

petelush

But the camera is worth most in the first five years, and its insurance, the negation of a larger gamble.

And after five years, I assume there is no insurance available. Anyway, I almost never had a product fail on me...

petelush

But the camera is worth most in the first five years, and its insurance, the negation of a larger gamble.

And after five years, I assume there is no insurance available. Anyway, I almost never had a product fail on me...

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

All the camera gear I have purchased for the past several years has been used. If I wanted a $10K camera I'd wait until it sold for a fraction of that price used.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

If I depended on the camera for work, then I likely would look into insurance.
But photography as a hobby, then probably not. In order to save $1,000, I'll willingly make the effort to be extra careful and avoid risky behavior when handling the camera.

petelush

Avoiding risky behavior is not a rational plan for some people. I drop things all the time, and I am hardly reckless. People say "Be careful!" What does that mean, what's the plan for being careful? I don't play catch with cameras so what else is there? I check the strap constantly -- one came loose last month and I caught the camera before it headed to the ground -- but bottom line I can't rely on a plan to avoid risky behavior, because I don't behave riskily to begin with, and that's not what's involved with the normal risks of carrying and using a camera.

petelush

We all know early adopters pay the price. It's another choice, like those fellows who, unlike me, like to get expensive cars.

BebuLamar

To answer the OP direct question. No, I won't buy the Pro protection plan. And of course it's more than $10,000 because I don't think the OP already has any lenses that can be used on that camera.

petelush

If the "OP" is me, I can respond. I bought the recommended lens -- FUJIFILM GF 32-64mm f/4 R LM WR Lens, "on sale" for $1800 (marked down from $2300 on the B&H site), and an adaptor for my five Pentax 67 lenses.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Actually it depends on the coverage. I got insurance for drops and spills in addition to an extended warranty on a Lumix LX5 camera I bought years ago. The odd thing was that I figured in order to be covered I'd have to completely trash the camera if it malfunctioned because of all the exclusions and problems people complained about in reviews of the two coverages. I figured I'd have to drown the camera in the toilet bowl then smash it against the floor before making a claim.

BebuLamar

Bobspez wrote:

Actually it depends on the coverage. I got insurance for drops and spills in addition to an extended warranty on a Lumix LX5 camera I bought years ago. The odd thing was that I figured in order to be covered I'd have to completely trash the camera if it malfunctioned because of all the exclusions and problems people complained about in reviews of the two coverages. I figured I'd have to drown the camera in the toilet bowl then smash it against the floor before making a claim.

The coverage the OP was talking about excludes intentional damage but then I wouldn't how they determine if it's intentional.

petelush

Progress: I just figured out "OP" means original poster. The weirdest thing I ever heard about insurance was at least 25 years ago on a radio financial advice show, and obviously I can never forget it. The advice to the caller was to cancel the life insurance on his baby. The caller thought he should insure the life of his new born

Vietnam Vet

We have home owners with State Farm. If I were to get camera protection I would go thru them for it because they have always treated us fairly.

petelush

I didn't know home owners covers damage, especially occurring outside the home. I will check my Assurant policy now.

petelush

Maybe it's because I have renters rather than owners home insurance but the coverage to the property is only against named "perils", and none of them are accidental damage. Not only that but the maximum payment is $9500. It's a bare minimum policy but all I need -- it's for liability.

Keen

Insurance policies are like tax laws. They all have loopholes. Insurance policy loopholes get insurance companies out from under, so they don't have to pay. I don't bother with them. I'm not clumsy enough to lose, and break, my gear, and no one steals from me.....not since I shot the last fool who tried. I'm the only insurance policy I need. To each his / her own, though.