Replacing your kit/insurance - input needed!

[TeeCee]

My camera insurance is up for renewal, but following a heart attack last year, I’m fully retired and no longer need the public indemnity/professional liability etc that was part of that policy. My intention is to add in the cost of a replacement kit into my house insurance, thereby saving myself a few hundred pounds a year. Worse case scenario would be if it was all stolen - but as I’m now retired – I wouldn’t need to replace all of it.

 

So – two questions – if you were starting from scratch – what would you buy? I’ve been a Canon user for the last 20 years (Nikon for 20 years prior to that), prefer full frame bodies, would like lenses from at least 24mm to 200mm, and will need a flash gun or two - but what would you choose and why?

 

And of course, if you too are adding this into your house insurance, how much extra did it bump up the cost?

Thanks in advance for all input on this!

 

Tony

Edited May 3, 2020 by TeeCee

[spacecadet]

I'm probably not a good example but you did ask.

Not full frame, but currently I have a second-hand Sony A58 and kit 18-55 and 55-200 zooms. Total cost under £300. Don't know about flash. I only bought new once, in 2009, and the equivalent then was about £500. All my stock except archive has been taken with it.

I've always self-insured and have never had more than about £2000 worth of kit at any one time,  now written down to zero. I've never had a loss which would have been insurable.

Edited May 3, 2020 by spacecadet

[MDM]

1 hour ago, TeeCee said:

My camera insurance is up for renewal, but following a heart attack last year, I’m fully retired and no longer need the public indemnity/professional liability etc that was part of that policy. My intention is to add in the cost of a replacement kit into my house insurance, thereby saving myself a few hundred pounds a year. Worse case scenario would be if it was all stolen - but as I’m now retired – I wouldn’t need to replace all of it.

 

So – two questions – if you were starting from scratch – what would you buy? I’ve been a Canon user for the last 20 years (Nikon for 20 years prior to that), prefer full frame bodies, would like lenses from at least 24mm to 200mm, and will need a flash gun or two - but what would you choose and why?

 

And of course, if you too are adding this into your house insurance, how much extra did it bump up the cost?

Thanks in advance for all input on this!

 

Tony

 

 

If you are going to continue to use the gear for stock, then you probably still need professional or semi-professional insurance for the gear itself so adding it to your house insurance may turn out to be false security if it is not actually covered. You should definitely check with your home insurer to see if it is actually covered. 

 

Starting from scratch and getting on a bit so weight is a factor  - Nikon are doing some amazing things in mirrorless and prices are well down at the moment. This full frame system might be all you ever need. 

[TeeCee]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

 

If you are going to continue to use the gear for stock, then you probably still need professional or semi-professional insurance for the gear itself so adding it to your house insurance may turn out to be false security if it is not actually covered. You should definitely check with your home insurer to see if it is actually covered. 

 

Starting from scratch and getting on a bit so weight is a factor  - Nikon are doing some amazing things in mirrorless and prices are well down at the moment. This full frame system might be all you ever need. 

Interesting point about whether still doing stock will necessitate retaining camera insurance rather than adding it to the house policy. Many thanks, I'll check that one!

[Phil Robinson]

Whatever you buy, I'd get it second hand. Camera Jungle and MPS have some very good prices on quality equipment. 

I use D600s - probably the best Nikon available if you don't want to spend 10x as much on a D5 or D6.

I've been using Sigma prime lenses recently but the Nikon 24-120 f4 is a great lens if you only want to carry one. 
As for insurance, I've never bothered and have got away with it so far. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Phil Robinson

[NYCat]

1 hour ago, TeeCee said:

Interesting point about whether still doing stock will necessitate retaining camera insurance rather than adding it to the house policy. Many thanks, I'll check that one!

 

My apartment insurance would cover my cameras if I make less than a certain percentage of my income from their use. So check with your agent.

 

Paulette

[geogphotos]

I use https://www.eversure.com/camera/

 

Never had a problem but then again have never needed to claim.

 

Cost is reasonable and goes down as a business expense. 

[Harry Harrison]

6 hours ago, TeeCee said:

prefer full frame bodies

Wondered if there was any particular reason for you doing so? If you are absolutely starting from scratch and abandoning your previous Canon system, with no lenses to make use of, then it is worth considering Fuji (XT-2 or X-Pro2 s/h perhaps or their current new successors), small but high quality camera bodies and lenses and a very good company in terms of supporting previous cameras with firmware updates. As with the Nikon Z6, you'd need to be sure that you like the electronic viewfinder on mirrorless cameras. Big savings in weight and size with mirrorless cameras. On the other hand if you're after high MP then it's probably going to be Nikon or Sony mirrorless.

[TeeCee]

16 hours ago, Harry Harrison said:

prefer full frame bodies ...

 

Wondered if there was any particular reason for you doing so? If you are absolutely starting from scratch and abandoning your previous Canon system, with no lenses to make use of, then it is worth considering Fuji (XT-2 or X-Pro2 s/h perhaps or their current new successors), small but high quality camera bodies and lenses and a very good company in terms of supporting previous cameras with firmware updates. As with the Nikon Z6, you'd need to be sure that you like the electronic viewfinder on mirrorless cameras. Big savings in weight and size with mirrorless cameras. On the other hand if you're after high MP then it's probably going to be Nikon or Sony mirrorless.

I've always taken the view that as far as sensors go, the bigger the better, but perhaps it's time for a rethink. With my 5DII or 6D I can crop quite severely into files and achieve a totally acceptable result. Not sure I'd be as comfortable doing so with the 1" sensor on my G5X, though I'm sure there must be a happy medium somewhere in between, and as you say, the weight saving will be a bonus.

 

[Harry Harrison]

2 hours ago, TeeCee said:

though I'm sure there must be a happy medium somewhere in between

I think it might be worth considering, or maybe borrowing one if you've got that option. You're in an enviable position really if you're starting from scratch. I also have a Canon 5D Mk.II but I have some of their wide-angle TS-E lenses for doing the occasional bit of architecture and interiors so I'm loathe to get rid of it though I'm probably just being a luddite in not wanting to get a super wide-angle and use Photoshop with a Fuji. I've had an original X100 since just after they came out but recently bought an X-Pro1 very cheaply to see how I got on in preparation for maybe getting an X-Pro2. I'm liking it a lot and don't in fact feel the need to upgrade to an X-Pro2 for the time being, even though the X-Pro1 is a 7 year old camera now. A 24 MP X-Pro2 or X-T2 secondhand in excellent condition from a dealer is probably going to be around the £600 mark and gives you a bit more cropping power than what you're used to, I think the sensor on the Fuji will be better in terms of dynamic range. Much as I love my Canons I really resent the weight and bulk so just take the Fuji out now for what you might laughingly call my Alamy work. Bear in mind that you need more batteries to feel safe with the Fuji's, original ones are expensive but Patona Premium or Xpro White are very good. It is of course going to depend upon what type of pictures you will be taking, if you're thinking that you may need 35, 45, or 60MP then I don't think Fuji will be going there, their latest incarnations are 26MP I think. If you regularly need high ISO (Wedding receptions etc.) then full frame will inevitably be better.

Edited May 4, 2020 by Harry Harrison

[IanDavidson]

I would echo some of the answers above.  If you have to make a claim and you were taking pictures for gain (ie stock) then it is quite possible your claim would be refused.  You need to check the fine print carefully.  Of course, as soon as you ask the insurance company you will raise a question over your policy usage.  

 

The public indemnity insurance is an interesting question.  If you hurt someone or damage something while photographing for stock I suspect it is quite unlikely you will be covered under your home insurance unless you specifically ask for this to be covered in which case, again I suspect, would be roughly the same as specialised insurance.  People these days are litigious at the slightest excuse.

 

I don't know what type of photography you do but as a news shooter I have had a larger number of threats to damage equipment or my person (and its not just the wife) than normal so I am glad I have insurance. 

 

The other issue is that if you cover events and need accreditation some do ask/check you have insurance.  This normally applies to sports events but can apply to other situations. 

 

I would caveat that I am by nature a cautious person and having worked in insurance for many years, am aware of the depth in which some clams are investigated, for example checking social media and your Alamy profile etc.  If a claim is refused it causes a great deal of difficulty up to and including the possibility of having an effect on your credit score

 

On 03/05/2020 at 17:37, Phil Robinson said:

Whatever you buy, I'd get it second hand. Camera Jungle and MPS have some very good prices on quality equipment. 

I use D600s - probably the best Nikon available if you don't want to spend 10x as much on a D5 or D6.

I've been using Sigma prime lenses recently but the Nikon 24-120 f4 is a great lens if you only want to carry one. 
As for insurance, I've never bothered and have got away with it so far. 

 

Phil,  re insurance, I am surprised at you.....

[spacecadet]

11 minutes ago, IanDavidson said:

Phil,  re insurance, I am surprised at you.....

Why Phil particularly? Is there something I don't know- I also said that I don't insure.

[geogphotos]

7 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

Why Phil particularly? Is there something I don't know- I also said that I don't insure.

 

Phil does a lot of News. 

 

I pay less than £100 a year. Home insurance is a bit questionable when you are in Spain or out on a stock photo trip away from home. 

 

I just felt, rightly or wrongly, that in doing this as a business rather than a little hobby I should have separate insurance.

 

Paying out for insurance only to find that you are not covered really is throwing money away.

 

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by geogphotos

[spacecadet]

1 minute ago, geogphotos said:

 

Phil does a lot of News. 

I see but the question was only about equipment insurance. Perhaps like me Phil has worked out that what he's saved on insurance would buy quite a bit of it.

[geogphotos]

Just now, spacecadet said:

I see but the question was only about equipment insurance. Perhaps like me Phil has worked out that what he's saved on insurance would buy quite a bit of it.

 

 

In rough figures I'm thinking £2000 of kit at £100 a year gives me 20 years of protection against doing something totally daft or getting robbed. 

 

And it's a painless amount to pay once a year for being covered.

[MDM]

Here is a recent comparison review of mid-range, full frame, mirrorless cameras from Sony, Nikon and Canon taking firmware updates into account. Sony and Nikon are still well ahead in terms of sensors which are very important I think. If I was starting again, it would still be Nikon but Sony makes for serious competition and gets the vote in that review. As well as sensors, in-body stabilisation is a must now in the mirrorless world for low light, hand held shooting. That is absent in the Canon. If video is a consideration, then the Z6 has some very serious potential. 

[TeeCee]

On 03/05/2020 at 17:45, NYCat said:

 

My apartment insurance would cover my cameras if I make less than a certain percentage of my income from their use. So check with your agent.

 

Paulette

Spent 20 minutes on the phone to our house insurance brokers this afternoon, and am covered under that policy. Well worth the phone call, annual saving of over £160.00 compared to my previous Photoshield one.

Thanks to all for the input!

Tony

[TeeCee]

5 hours ago, IanDavidson said:

I would echo some of the answers above.  If you have to make a claim and you were taking pictures for gain (ie stock) then it is quite possible your claim would be refused.  You need to check the fine print carefully.  Of course, as soon as you ask the insurance company you will raise a question over your policy usage.  

 

The public indemnity insurance is an interesting question.  If you hurt someone or damage something while photographing for stock I suspect it is quite unlikely you will be covered under your home insurance unless you specifically ask for this to be covered in which case, again I suspect, would be roughly the same as specialised insurance.  People these days are litigious at the slightest excuse.

 

I don't know what type of photography you do but as a news shooter I have had a larger number of threats to damage equipment or my person (and its not just the wife) than normal so I am glad I have insurance. 

 

The other issue is that if you cover events and need accreditation some do ask/check you have insurance.  This normally applies to sports events but can apply to other situations. 

 

I would caveat that I am by nature a cautious person and having worked in insurance for many years, am aware of the depth in which some clams are investigated, for example checking social media and your Alamy profile etc.  If a claim is refused it causes a great deal of difficulty up to and including the possibility of having an effect on your credit score

 

 

Phil,  re insurance, I am surprised at you.....

Thanks for the input Ian, haven't done any hard news since leaving my staff job in 1998. With the exception of a few shifts here and there in the early years, I've since concentrated on PR and commercial shoots up until last year's medical "event", so unlikely to get assaulted these days!
As far as the public indemnity goes, this is now little more than a hobby to me (by far the largest part of my income coming from pensions) and so unlikely I'd be categorised as professional by any measure. Hence (hopefully) I should have no greater need for public indemnity than any other member of the public carrying an offensive implement - umbrella, handbag etc. I think.... 😀

[Phil Robinson]

15 hours ago, IanDavidson said:

Phil,  re insurance, I am surprised at you.....

 

Are you still on commission? 

[Phil Robinson]

15 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Why Phil particularly? Is there something I don't know- I also said that I don't insure.

Ian thought he knew me.......

[Allan Bell]

15 hours ago, MDM said:

Here is a recent comparison review of mid-range, full frame, mirrorless cameras from Sony, Nikon and Canon taking firmware updates into account. Sony and Nikon are still well ahead in terms of sensors which are very important I think. If I was starting again, it would still be Nikon but Sony makes for serious competition and gets the vote in that review. As well as sensors, in-body stabilisation is a must now in the mirrorless world for low light, hand held shooting. That is absent in the Canon. If video is a consideration, then the Z6 has some very serious potential. 

 

If you go to "Nikon Rumours" website there is a list of Nikon cameras and you will note that Nikon use Sony sensors in most of their camera bodies including the 800 series.

 

Whereas I believe Canon have made most of their own sensors except a few for their point and shot models which are Sony sensors.

 

Allan

 

[CAROL SAUNDERS]

My kit insurance is with Aaduki.  I still have professional indemnity insurance even though I no longer choose to do commercial etc.    I just feel better knowing it's there just in case 😉

 

Carol

[Stokie]

I can recommend Photoguard for camera insurance. I have professional indemnity insurance for my architectural business but not for my photography one.

 

John.

[Bryan]

On 04/05/2020 at 13:11, TeeCee said:

I've always taken the view that as far as sensors go, the bigger the better, but perhaps it's time for a rethink. With my 5DII or 6D I can crop quite severely into files and achieve a totally acceptable result. Not sure I'd be as comfortable doing so with the 1" sensor on my G5X, though I'm sure there must be a happy medium somewhere in between, and as you say, the weight saving will be a bonus.

 

 

I've a 5DII but it rarely leaves the house since I went mirrorless crop frame Sony. I would say that the sensor in the A6500 is superior to that in the Canon, particularly with regard to shadow noise, but there are caveats. I do like the look of full frame images, and I remain disappointed with Sony's collection of lenses for that format, but the convenience of the smaller camera outweighs these considerations for me. A lot of people have skipped the APS-C sensor range and have opted for the fixed lens pocket sized collection of Sony cameras with 1" sensors that are accepted here. Maybe I should have pursued that route.

[Marianne]

Insurance is a lot less expensive in the UK than the US - but then our society is probably the most litigious in the world. 

 

I'm with Ian, having been a trial attorney for years, I'd be very worried to be without liability coverage. As my broker once noted, if the UPS guy trips on his way to my door with a package for my business, my homeowner's insurance won't cover me if he sues. Eerily, not long after that, a florist delivered a beautiful bouquet, turned around, headed back up the path to his van and minutes later there was a loud crash and a huge tree limb came down where he had just been standing. We were both very relieved that he was on the opposite end of the path. Of course, that would have been my homeowner's policy but you get the point.

 

Having been through fires, floods and hurricane wind damage, I'd be scared to self-insure, though I've got a high deductible, it's one I can handle.

 

Oh and on the camera, I vote for the Sony full frame. I have the A7rii and with 42MP you could crop substantially. 

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by Marianne

[sb photos]

I have £2M public liability insurance, have had for some years. Once I was walking backwards photographing the front of a moving march and bumped into someone, remarkably the only time that has ever happened. Think I trod on their foot too. After apologising and checking they were OK I remember thinking thankfully I was insured. Talking to other photographers most had £5M insurance, and I know some events I wanted to shoot in the future required £5M. As I am doing very little at present with no risks the dilemma is do I renew soon at £2M or let it lapse and go for £5M later when/if things get back to normal.