THIS is WHY I fit UV filters

[JR1]

No comment on the protective / UV / etc filter issue, as it's been beaten to death a million times to no avail. But I will just say that I don't use them, but I do have a comprehensive photographer's equipment insurance plan covering all of my gear.

Totally 100% agree, with your comments

The insurance is what matters

I had NO concerns, had the filter scratched the lens, no probs, like you I believe the VERY BEST money you can spend is on PROPER, no household, but proper photo insurance.

[loosecanon]

I use a filter on all lenses to protect the front element, and provide a surface that can be cleaned,

I also inspect the filters I use and every so often decide its time for a replacment, much cheaper than a lens overhall.

[ajohnw]

I use a filter on all lenses to protect the front element, and provide a surface that can be cleaned,

I also inspect the filters I use and every so often decide its time for a replacment, much cheaper than a lens overhall.

I feel that is a sensible attitude to them. In terms of muck building up on glass perhaps people should think about how often the windows on their houses need cleaning on the inside.

House insurance can be arranged to cover all sorts of things but personally if I had separate photographic equipment insurance I would ask the people who covered the house content if they were happy to exclude the gear from the policy as it was covered by some one else.

Talking to my house insurers a couple of years ago they made an interesting comment without any prompting. If some one is running a business from home different things apply - different ball game were the words used. Made I assume because more and more people are doing this in the UK. The implications being that people would need some form of business premises insurance, not household insurance. The problem with not sorting this sort of thing out become apparent when something significant happens and a loss adjuster calls.

John
-

[FlyingSquirrel]

House insurance can be arranged to cover all sorts of things but personally if I had separate photographic equipment insurance I would ask the people who covered the house content if they were happy to exclude the gear from the policy as it was covered by some one else.
-

House insurance should NEVER be used to cover photographic equipment. This is because, in virtually every case, the equipment would only be covered by the insurance when it is within the confines of the home. Thus, as soon as you leave your house to take pictures outside, your gear is no longer insured. And second, if you make a claim on your gear, your home insurance costs could go up if the insurer decides you are a risky customer. I highly recommend separate photographic equipment insurance, as it will usually be more comprehensive in terms of what is covered, where it's covered, etc.

I have gear insurance through NANPA. It's very reasonably priced and is extremely comprehensive.

[Mike Buckley]

House insurance should NEVER be used to cover photographic equipment. This is because, in virtually every case, the equipment would only be covered by the insurance when it is within the confines of the home.

My home owner's policy, which is a standard Nationwide policy, states the following: "We cover personal property owned or used by an insured while it is anywhere in the world." Photography gear is covered. Notice that the statement indicates that my gear is covered whether I own it or am renting or borrowing it.

[ajohnw]

My home owner's policy, which is a standard Nationwide policy, states the following: "We cover personal property owned or used by an insured while it is anywhere in the world." Photography gear is covered. Notice that the statement indicates that my gear is covered whether I own it or am renting or borrowing it.

Variations on that are fairly common Mike. In fact I don't think I have ever had content insurance that didn't include something like that. What I did was state a value when we took the policy out. Adding it all up was interesting. Must admit we don't have accidental damage cover but assume this could be added. A friend of mine had a problem with that - a picture fell of the wall damaging furniture. Not an accident, an act of god. Those were the terms used. Losses due to nuclear weapons, terrorists and war etc are usually excluded too.

I suspect the business use was mentioned as a friendly warning just in case and is worth bearing in mind. If that is done fairly it will just be for the equipment that is concerned.

John
-

[JR1]

My home owner's policy, which is a standard Nationwide policy, states the following: "We cover personal property owned or used by an insured while it is anywhere in the world." Photography gear is covered. Notice that the statement indicates that my gear is covered whether I own it or am renting or borrowing it.

I was speaking from a the point of view that I am a "working" photographer and home policies don't as far as I know cover business use, also whilst they may be "ok" pro insurance means immediate replacement, loans, even flying gear to a location, whereas home means you will get it back, sometime

[Mike Buckley]

home policies don't as far as I know cover business use

Correct.

[FlyingSquirrel]

My home owner's policy, which is a standard Nationwide policy, states the following: "We cover personal property owned or used by an insured while it is anywhere in the world." Photography gear is covered. Notice that the statement indicates that my gear is covered whether I own it or am renting or borrowing it.

Interesting. Obviously I learned something new today...I've never talked to anyone that had coverage like that...and my renter's insurance certainly doesn't do that. I've heard cautionary tales on various forums, as well. Apparently there are better insurance plans!

As far as making a claim on gear on your home insurance, I wonder if it could affect your overall home insurance costs. I've heard a number of people say that it's not the best idea to group home and photo gear, but lately I've been wrong about quite a lot of things, so obviously I need to start gathering new information. Live and learn, I guess.

[JR1]

My home owner's policy, which is a standard Nationwide policy, states the following: "We cover personal property owned or used by an insured while it is anywhere in the world." Photography gear is covered. Notice that the statement indicates that my gear is covered whether I own it or am renting or borrowing it.

You have NOT read what I said

I clearly stated for PROFESSIONAL use, as a WORKING photographer with £30k of gear if I were to lose it on an assignment home insurance does not cover WORK gear and I also said that the INSURERS would supply free RENTAL/replacement not that I was renting

[Mike Buckley]

You have NOT read what I said

Actually, Jeremy, I have read all of your posts in the thread and it's impolite to suggest otherwise. Moreover, notice that my post that you have now quoted two times was written in direct response to Matt's post; my post that you're quoting about home owner's coverage bears no reflection whatsoever on your posts about business coverage. Additionally, I posted a message directly concurring with you that home owner's policies do not cover business use. In summary, I do understand your posts about insurance and agree with them.

[loosecanon]

On my home insurance I increase the limit for articles away from home. The reality is that I am only likely to take some of my kit away from home at any time so I don't need total cost of replacment as new which is the criteria adopted. Currently I have £14000 of cover away from the house.
I also give the insurance company a list of my equipment, with estimated replacment value and serial numbers, so should loss occur they have a record of equipment on file; however I also make it clear that I may add to the list in the year to come.
This way in no way can they claim not to know what I was asking to be covered.

[Glenn NK]

No comment on the protective / UV / etc filter issue, as it's been beaten to death a million times to no avail. But I will just say that I don't use them, but I do have a comprehensive photographer's equipment insurance plan covering all of my gear.

Agree. It would be more productive to discuss the kind of toothpaste we use, and surely a lot less divisive.

[FlyingSquirrel]

Agree. It would be more productive to discuss the kind of toothpaste we use, and surely a lot less divisive.

Glenn, this made me chuckle. So true!

[Glenn NK]

Glenn, this made me chuckle. So true!

The issue with filter/no filter is very complex and variable. There are countless onliners that make a strong and reasoned case for either choice, but they are always based on one particular incident.

However the number and type of incidents that can cause damage are many; even very small variations in the accident type can have a profound effect on the type and extent of the ensuing damage. For example: does a falling camera land on the floor with the lens pointing down and the axis perpendicular to the floor or does it fall lens down at an angle - different damage results will ensue (one can only imagine the complexities involved).

So the choice of filter/no filter has to be based on the exact type of accident one is going to experience. Or put the other way 'round, one must ensure that the accident falls within the effectiveness of the filter/no filter choice one has made.

In conclusion, if one knows what type of accident will occur, one can make a more informed filter/no filter choice.

This then seems to be the preferred approach to filter/non filter conundrum: Select your exact accident type and prepare for it accordingly.

Glenn