Buzz Kill Topic: Stolen Gear

[YuengLinger]

Many members here advocate insurance for lost, damaged, or stolen gear. I've had coverage for several years through the Professional Photographers of America (PPA), but fortunately have never needed it.

Question 1: If you ever had a gear disaster, and you have insurance, did the company pay as you expected?

Question 2: Have you ever worried that posting info about your gear, whether in your signature in a forum or in a social media discussion, might increase the risk of theft? And, as another way of thinking of this issue, do you carefully edit your online discussion of gear?

In my photo club, most members are very concerned about sharing info online, most not even wanting to schedule meetups for outings. I definitely lean this way too.

Question 3: Do you think you were ever a target of premeditated theft? (Rather than, say, a grab and run while sightseeing.)

I know these are unpleasant questions, and I hope they don't fuel paranoia, but I thought maybe talking about the issues might help vent a little anxiety or, worse, anger over an incident.

(Hey, it's August, and rainy, and hot, and the Olympics aren't giving me a tingle...)

 

[Ryananthony]

I do not insure my gear specifically. I ''only'' have about $10,000 worth.

I live in Vancouver, BC. Not once have I been shooting and been worried about my gear being stolen by snatch and grab or by knife etc.

No I don't sensor the gear I own, be it on FB, Canon rumours, or any other forum or outlet I speak on. I have purchased and sold lots of gear on craigslist and not once have I met someone sketchy. I wouldn't even be worried about meeting up with someone for a $8,000 lens for example. If they have pictures and box, you can expect it to be real ad, no on purchases something like that for bait. (perhaps irrelevant, but I only bring this up because you asked about premeditated theft.) I went a road trip to SanFran and even then didn't even use a wrist strap or anything similar. Maybe I'm foolish, But at the same time maybe others are for being so worried.

:-\

 

[privatebydesign]

I self insure gear, I have business liability insurance but for many years worked in areas no gear insurance was available so got into what some might consider a bad habit. I have never had a serious camera gear theft, but have had several dropped lenses and bodies and breakages from that. None of those have ever cost me close to full value replacement costs to fix so insurance would have been superfluous.

But the truth is if I lost all my gear I could replace it the next day, and the chances of losing it all are slim.

I have never worried about theft, I have seen people eyeing my gear/bag up, but one look in the eye and the 'threat' dissipates.

As for worrying about it online, no chance. Who really cares? The people who are scared have bought into the 'we must all be scared all the time' bull so eagerly peddled by politicians and media desperate for ratings.

If I was a criminal and I wanted to get $10,000's worth of camera gear I'd go to any wetlands in Florida and take half a dozen 600 f4's and the 1DX's and 5DSR's carried round by any number of retired enthusiasts and hobbyists with an average age of 106.

 

[AlanF]

I was once given the advice that you should insure yourself only against a loss you could not afford. If you can afford to cover the loss yourself then you will lose money in the long run because you are in effect gambling with insurers who know the odds better than you and who are also insuring careless idiots and you will be covering their costs as well.

 

[YuengLinger]

I was once given the advice that you should insure yourself only against a loss you could not afford. If you can afford to cover the loss yourself then you will lose money in the long run because you are in effect gambling with insurers who know the odds better than you and who are also insuring careless idiots and you will be covering their costs as well.

Makes sense.

I'd still like to hear from somebody who has been paid for a substantial claim--how it went, paperwork and time involved. We hear from many about the common sense of being insured, but I don't know anybody personally (fortunately!) who has received any benefit other than peace of mind.

 

[monkey44]

I've been a sports and nature (wilderness) photo-journalist for over twenty-five years. I've never had so much as a lens cap stolen. I'm careful, I lock up my gear and cover it in the truck, and go do my job. I work only in the USA ... but we have theft here in some areas as well as any other country.

I'd guess that if my gear was stolen today, I'd replace it tomorrow, and would have paid more than its cost in insurance if I'd ever bought it.

 

[privatebydesign]

I was once given the advice that you should insure yourself only against a loss you could not afford. If you can afford to cover the loss yourself then you will lose money in the long run because you are in effect gambling with insurers who know the odds better than you and who are also insuring careless idiots and you will be covering their costs as well.

Makes sense.

I'd still like to hear from somebody who has been paid for a substantial claim--how it went, paperwork and time involved. We hear from many about the common sense of being insured, but I don't know anybody personally (fortunately!) who has received any benefit other than peace of mind.

I worked with an underwater photographer who always carried comprehensive equipment insurance. He had had several claims and payouts. He said the claims were always settled in full (he had new for old coverage) and very quickly. On one occasion he lost a camera and lens to flooding on a trip and the replacements were at his studio before he got back there four days later, he also said his premiums were high!

 

[Mikehit]

I've never taken out insurance specifically for camera gear because it is covered new-for-old on the house insurance. Fortunately I have not had to make any claims.

 

[jddive]

So far not much on people who did lose gear, so I'll add my 2 cents.

Full story can be found on my website (www.joostdaniels.com), any tips still welcome of course but I'm not holding my breath. Short story: Taking pictures alone in the evening in what apparently isn't the best part of town in San Francisco (I didn't know). Three guys in a stolen rental car roll up and rob me at gunpoint. Lost 5DII+24-105+CF tripod. Tripod and 24-105 were brand new, but the idiots didn't see the bag with 4 more lenses and my 7D sitting right next to me.
I wan't insured, except for my travel insurance, which reimbursed their max of 250 euros (obviously value was more). Replaced my 5DII with a Mark 3 within weeks, so this made me feel a little better about the whole ordeal.
Since, then, I've been insured through PPA but had no claims. I agree with the statement above that if you can afford to replace your gear (easily), then insurance doesn't make sense. I'm reasonably careful now so I might stop my insurance... especially since typically I now carry a lot less gear at once.

Overall, my advice is be wary of your surroundings, avoid bringing lots and lots of gear if you don't really need it. I don't believe fighting back is the best course of action when robbed (and a knife or gun is involved), personally I just let them take my stuff but got very close to catching the bastards (that is, my description of the vehicle lead the police to locating the car within minutes).
I did use lenstag and kept an eye on craigslist for a while, but it wasn't making me happier so stopped after a few weeks. Especially hard with such common gear.
In terms of insurance, you might want to consider it if your risk is elevated, for example with UW photography, or other specific arts. Then, the statement by AlanF, is still correct but if you're in the category 'careless idiots' you have the othere insured people pay for you... That's how insurance works after all.

I've never been hesitant to share my gear info online, but don't believe it's that easy to figure out the location of my gear. It's probably possible, but I'll bet most gear loss is not because of criminals that smart.

To answer the question on the claim process; a brief description of the event and the police report was all that was needed to get the 250 euros from my foreign travel insurance company. They were quick to pay out. Overall rather hassle-free.

 

[privatebydesign]

I was once given the advice that you should insure yourself only against a loss you could not afford. If you can afford to cover the loss yourself then you will lose money in the long run because you are in effect gambling with insurers who know the odds better than you and who are also insuring careless idiots and you will be covering their costs as well.

Strictly speaking that isn't how insurance works.

The premiums don't go into a pool and the payoff's come out of it and the insurance company takes the rest. No, in reality the insurance company has the risk underwritten by an underwriter, for a fee they (the underwriter) assume the risk of the policy.

But ultimately of course all these people make money and they can only do that via the premiums, so in essence, and the long term, the observation is valid.

 

[Orangutan]

I was once given the advice that you should insure yourself only against a loss you could not afford. If you can afford to cover the loss yourself then you will lose money in the long run because you are in effect gambling with insurers who know the odds better than you and who are also insuring careless idiots and you will be covering their costs as well.

Superficially this sounds good; however, the question is what it means to be able to "afford" a loss. Does "afford" mean you don't go into debt to pay the cost, or does it mean it won't cause a serious financial hardship? I could "afford" to wipe out my retirement fund to cover a loss, but I certainly don't want to.

A better rule is not to insure anything you could either do without or could pay for by economizing in other aspects of life.

Insurance is an advanced evolutionary development of civilization. On the other hand, most insurance companies...

 

[privatebydesign]

I wonder if having "scuffed up" equipment makes it less desirable to thieve?

No it doesn't, neither does having tape on it, I used to know a lot of thieves. Opportunity is the overriding factor, if they think they can get away with it they will steal it.

 

[tpatana]

Many members here advocate insurance for lost, damaged, or stolen gear. I've had coverage for several years through the Professional Photographers of America (PPA), but fortunately have never needed it.

Question 1: If you ever had a gear disaster, and you have insurance, did the company pay as you expected?

Nothing, hopefully never.

Question 2: Have you ever worried that posting info about your gear, whether in your signature in a forum or in a social media discussion, might increase the risk of theft? And, as another way of thinking of this issue, do you carefully edit your online discussion of gear?

Nope, that would be just silly. Like X said above, go Florida. If you don't want to steal from their hands, wait until they die of old age and just pick up the lenses on the roadside.

In my photo club, most members are very concerned about sharing info online, most not even wanting to schedule meetups for outings. I definitely lean this way too.

That sounds quite silly. Or you live in shady area. Only once I carried more than my monopod. I was shooting alone after midnight in shady part of the town. Nothing happened.

Question 3: Do you think you were ever a target of premeditated theft? (Rather than, say, a grab and run while sightseeing.)

Not for camera, but for wallet in Paris. I did spot them in time, and acted accordingly so they got nothing.

I saw the video from somewhere (Rio?) where they snatched lens right off the body of some poor guy, and he didn't notice until it was too late. So yes, be smart about all and you'll be fine most of the time. Sometimes things happen, but preparing well minimizes the risk and damage.

 

[AlanF]

I was once given the advice that you should insure yourself only against a loss you could not afford. If you can afford to cover the loss yourself then you will lose money in the long run because you are in effect gambling with insurers who know the odds better than you and who are also insuring careless idiots and you will be covering their costs as well.

Superficially this sounds good; however, the question is what it means to be able to "afford" a loss. Does "afford" mean you don't go into debt to pay the cost, or does it mean it won't cause a serious financial hardship? I could "afford" to wipe out my retirement fund to cover a loss, but I certainly don't want to.

A better rule is not to insure anything you could either do without or could pay for by economizing in other aspects of life.

Insurance is an advanced evolutionary development of civilization. On the other hand, most insurance companies...

You have missed out in that rule the very best situation: you can afford to replace the loss without having to economise.

 

[Orangutan]

I was once given the advice that you should insure yourself only against a loss you could not afford. If you can afford to cover the loss yourself then you will lose money in the long run because you are in effect gambling with insurers who know the odds better than you and who are also insuring careless idiots and you will be covering their costs as well.

Superficially this sounds good; however, the question is what it means to be able to "afford" a loss. Does "afford" mean you don't go into debt to pay the cost, or does it mean it won't cause a serious financial hardship? I could "afford" to wipe out my retirement fund to cover a loss, but I certainly don't want to.

A better rule is not to insure anything you could either do without or could pay for by economizing in other aspects of life.

Insurance is an advanced evolutionary development of civilization. On the other hand, most insurance companies...

You have missed out in that rule the very best situation: you can afford to replace the loss without having to economise.

I would have to be much wealthier than I am.

 

[tpatana]

I was once given the advice that you should insure yourself only against a loss you could not afford. If you can afford to cover the loss yourself then you will lose money in the long run because you are in effect gambling with insurers who know the odds better than you and who are also insuring careless idiots and you will be covering their costs as well.

Superficially this sounds good; however, the question is what it means to be able to "afford" a loss. Does "afford" mean you don't go into debt to pay the cost, or does it mean it won't cause a serious financial hardship? I could "afford" to wipe out my retirement fund to cover a loss, but I certainly don't want to.

A better rule is not to insure anything you could either do without or could pay for by economizing in other aspects of life.

Insurance is an advanced evolutionary development of civilization. On the other hand, most insurance companies...

You have missed out in that rule the very best situation: you can afford to replace the loss without having to economise.

I would have to be much wealthier than I am.

I could easily replace my gear for the price I told my wife I paid for them.

 

[FEBS]

I could easily replace my gear for the price I told my wife I paid for them.

+1, same situation over here. ;D