Is your midrange gear insured?

[Botts]

I insure nothing. Regardless of how high the risk is, I'm sure the insurance companies have figured it out better than I could, and if it's profitable for them, it can't be for me, in the long run.Otherwise, you are paying for not having to do the math and for feeling a little less uncertain about the future. Maybe that feeling is worth the money to you. But it will cost you money, not save it.

On a grand scale, for long-term you're correct. On a realistic scale though, it comes down to risk tolerance.

Right now, I'm sitting with $9,000 worth of gear in my backpack. This is currently my hobby. If my backpack were to disappear, I'd be crushed, and not able to repurchase the gear. It would take me several years to rebuild my collection. For me, the risk of losing the insurance premium by not using it is far outweighed, by the potential risk of $9,000.

The math doesn't make sense to insure when you include the risk of actually using all 9k of gear. But I am not an insurance company that can afford to "write off" the capital loss. For an insurance company, it makes sense to insure me, I'm likely 100% profit. But to me, the cost is worth it.

 

[Eagle Eye]

I have my 5d Mark II, 17-40L, 24-105L, 24-70L, 70-200L, 50L, 100L Macro, 135L, 28 1.8, 85 1.8, 580EXII, and Gitzo tripod all fully insured for the cost of brand new replacement through USAA for $118 annually. Replacement costs were pulled from B&H and are typically higher than what I actually paid (why lenses are a great investment). This covers every possible source of loss or damage, from theft to dropped out of a helicopter at 3000 feet. There's no deductible. I live in Texas.

 

[miah]

Like several other posters, I don't "believe" in insurance, think it's generally a raw deal, and buy as little of it as possible. That said, all $15K worth of my photo gear is fully insured with State Farm.

Their Personal Articles policy is a no-brainer. It's an excellent value for the money, which I've come to know first-hand: I hit a rock and dropped an EOS 10S/24-135mm film camera/lens in the San Juan river while canoeing and it was replaced with the next BETTER model, no questions asked; my Sony digital camcorder and some accessories were stolen while diving in St. Vincent and it was replaced with the next BETTER model, no questions asked; my iPod, new Sony camcorder and a bunch of accessories were stolen while motorcycling across Bolivia and they were replaced with the next BETTER model, no questions asked. All of this was zero deductible and the new gear was Fed Ex'ed to me overnight.

The fact is, everyone must weigh their own level of personal risk. I travel a lot, and can't possibly watch my gear 100% of the time. This is far different than the guy who keeps most of his gear safely stowed at home and takes a small kit out on weekends where it's always in his possession. My risk is relatively high, so much so that I'm surprised State Farm is willing to sell their policies at such reasonable rates and still cover loss or damage anywhere in the world. But if your risk is relatively low, self-insuring might be the better choice.

 

[RMC33]

I have my 5d Mark II, 17-40L, 24-105L, 24-70L, 70-200L, 50L, 100L Macro, 135L, 28 1.8, 85 1.8, 580EXII, and Gitzo tripod all fully insured for the cost of brand new replacement through USAA for $118 annually. Replacement costs were pulled from B&H and are typically higher than what I actually paid (why lenses are a great investment). This covers every possible source of loss or damage, from theft to dropped out of a helicopter at 3000 feet. There's no deductible. I live in Texas.

Thats not bad at all!

 

[Rienzphotoz]

But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay. Compare the insurance premiums with what the bank would charge for a loan. If insurance company wants 2.5% of the value of the item and interest rate in the bank is 5%, you'd have to figure you break half of your gear for insurance to make sense.

What are you talking about? ... You don't have to break half your gear for insurance to make sense, my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II alone costs around $ 2000 ... paying 2.5% (i.e. $50 a year) is peanuts compared to not having an insurance and having the lens stolen/lost ... would you rather pay $ 50 or $ 2000.
Recently someone stole my 24-40 f/2.9 L II lens, unfortunately I had no insurance (insurance for camera gear, does not exist in this coountry) and I cannot buy the 24-70 L II again ... but if I had insurance, paying that $50 would have made helluva lot of sense.

50 bucks a year? What insurance company is this? I just went online and got a quote for $600 a year. And thats not pro cover. That would be the cost of a small lens every year! Pretty sure I could afford NOT to pay that!

Clearly you have not read some of the quotes given by others here in the thread (e.g. florianbieler.de & Eagle Eye ... florianbieler.de also gave a web link which you can check it out yourself). BTW Which insurance company gave you the quote of "$600 a year"? what annual percentage were they charging you? and what is the total value of the gear?

 

[tapanit]

But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay.

What are you talking about? ... You don't have to break half your gear for insurance to make sense, my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II alone costs around $ 2000 ... paying 2.5% (i.e. $50 a year) is peanuts compared to not having an insurance and having the lens stolen/lost ... would you rather pay $ 50 or $ 2000.

OK, I oversimplified the numbers, but really... would you rather pay $2000 now or $50/year forever? How about $500/month? If you preferred $50/month, congratulations, you've understood the time value of money.

Where exactly it breaks even depends on the interest rate etc, but nonetheless there is a monthly sum that's effectively the price of an "eternal loan" for $2000. For argument's sake let's say it's $200/month. Then your choice would be certain loss of $50/month with insurance, or possible loss of $200/month without. How likely would you have to be to destroy the camera for insurance to make sense?

And finally, do you think you can estimate that probability better than insurance companies?

 

[tapanit]

I insure nothing. Regardless of how high the risk is, I'm sure the insurance companies have figured it out better than I could, and if it's profitable for them, it can't be for me, in the long run.

On a grand scale, for long-term you're correct. On a realistic scale though, it comes down to risk tolerance.

Of course. I wasn't arguing nobody should take insurance, only explaining why I don't. Mostly it comes down to mental risk tolerance, rather than financial - how you feel about uncertainty.

I also travel a lot and take chances with my gear. I've traveled in places where I was told "robbery is near certainty", and I have once destroyed a DSLR by slipping on a rock while crossing a river (an L lens also got wet but was fine after cleaning). But no regrets: I've done the math, and if I'd consistently insured my photo gear over the 15 years (at the time) I'd been using SLRs it would've cost me way more than replacing that body did.

I am not an insurance company that can afford to "write off" the capital loss. For an insurance company, it makes sense to insure me, I'm likely 100% profit. But to me, the cost is worth it.

Then by all means pay it. For me, it isn't, so I don't.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

But in general, especially for a hobbyist, insurance does not pay. Compare the insurance premiums with what the bank would charge for a loan. If insurance company wants 2.5% of the value of the item and interest rate in the bank is 5%, you'd have to figure you break half of your gear for insurance to make sense.

What are you talking about? ... You don't have to break half your gear for insurance to make sense, my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II alone costs around $ 2000 ... paying 2.5% (i.e. $50 a year) is peanuts compared to not having an insurance and having the lens stolen/lost ... would you rather pay $ 50 or $ 2000.

OK, I oversimplified the numbers, but really... would you rather pay $2000 now or $50/year forever? How about $500/month? If you preferred $50/month, congratulations, you've understood the time value of money.

Where exactly it breaks even depends on the interest rate etc, but nonetheless there is a monthly sum that's effectively the price of an "eternal loan" for $2000. For argument's sake let's say it's $200/month. Then your choice would be certain loss of $50/month with insurance, or possible loss of $200/month without. How likely would you have to be to destroy the camera for insurance to make sense?

And finally, do you think you can estimate that probability better than insurance companies?

You have gone from over simplifying to over complicated, we are talking about 2.5% insurance per year ... so I'm not sure what you are goin on about "eternal loan" and $200/month ???
I am really interested to know which insurance company is charging you $200/month (i.e. $1200 per year for a $2000 lens) :