Anyone know how to get accident protection for a 5d3?

I was checking out squaretrade on amazon and their accident protection plan only goes up to camera worth $2000. How can I insure my camera for accidents being that its worth around $3300 or so?

http://www.mackcam.com​/warranties/digital-cameras/

You can try this.

Your homeowners/renters insurance should be able to quote you for a rider that will cover just about anything.

+1 on this.
My accident insurance for my computer and camera equipment is through my renters insurance. Don't assume your covered. I added up everything carefully and they gave me a rider specific to the equipment value.

Erik S. Klein wrote in post #16545702
Your homeowners/renters insurance should be able to quote you for a rider that will cover just about anything.

Two kinds of people need insurance. The first is professionals who can write off the cost of insurance as a business expense. The second is people who buy equipment they can't afford. If you can afford to buy X, you can afford to replace it that one time every twenty years or so that it gets lost or stolen. If your stuff is getting lost or stolen more than that, please consider that you could pay more attention to security/surroundings. That said, insurance is for peace-of-mind. It is very seldom a sound financial investment.

I live in a unpredictable city so different rules apply here. I only wish stuff got stolen "every twenty years or so".

Plus how is having warranty incase parts fail or get damaged a bad idea? Ive accidentally dropped my camera before and it landed on a lens that I had no warranty for.

I live out in the middle of nowhere. Most of my neighbors are Amish. I am sure that gives us completely different perspectives on insurance.

I've never had had a piece of equipment lost/damaged/stolen. Perhaps I'd sing a different tune if I had suffered a big loss. Paying $200/year, with a $500 deductible means I am paying for a 70-200 II every 10 years, whether I need one or not. I'll take the loss, if/when it comes. I just can't volunteer to throw money out the window. I am comfortable with that.

Wrap in cotton wool and cradle like a new born.

Erik S. Klein wrote in post #16545702
Your homeowners/renters insurance should be able to quote you for a rider that will cover just about anything.

That's what I do. All our insurance is handled by one High Street broker. I had to specify exactly what I wanted and the staff assembled it into a single camera kit insurance which is unique to me. Surprisingly not expensive.

EOS5DC wrote in post #16546145
Two kinds of people need insurance. The first is professionals who can write off the cost of insurance as a business expense. The second is people who buy equipment they can't afford. If you can afford to buy X, you can afford to replace it that one time every twenty years or so that it gets lost or stolen. If your stuff is getting lost or stolen more than that, please consider that you could pay more attention to security/surroundings. That said, insurance is for peace-of-mind. It is very seldom a sound financial investment.

Your logic is just plain ignorant. The costs of adding a camera to homeowners insurance is very minimal. To say if you need insurance you can't afford is just insulting and ignorant. I guess in your world you can just throw away $3K or more in gear. I suspect you shoot an old model and think anyone that buys new can't afford it. I can't control who breaks into my car or house or weather, so blaming someone for not paying attention to their surroundings is stupid. Replacing a camera after 20 years is no comparable to having one that is 1-2 years old and stolen.

Everyone should insure their gear no matter what. period.

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #16546336
Your logic is just plain ignorant. The costs of adding a camera to homeowners insurance is very minimal. To say if you need insurance you can't afford is just insulting and ignorant. I guess in your world you can just throw away $3K or more in gear. I suspect you shoot an old model and think anyone that buys new can't afford it. I can't control who breaks into my car or house or weather, so blaming someone for not paying attention to their surroundings is stupid. Replacing a camera after 20 years is no comparable to having one that is 1-2 years old and stolen.

Everyone should insure their gear no matter what. period.

I think you misunderstood my position. I will try again. I currently pay about $1200 per year in homeowner's insurance. That includes $500 per year in 'no-claims' benefits. That means I'd be paying $500 more per year, if I had a claim. Keep that in mind. I also carry $5,000 deductible because it saves me about $500 per year.

My policy covers $2,000 of camera gear without a rider. I have about $12,000 worth of photo gear in my closet. Since I have no rider, and my deductible exceeds my coverage (I could get a $500 dedectible, $$$), I effectively have no insurance on my gear.

Situation 1:
I buy the rider to cover $12,000 worth of gear. That costs me about $200 per year. I believe that lowers my deductible on photo gear to $500, maybe $0. Two possibilities exist. I either have a claim in the next ten years, or I do not. Let us start with the easy one; I do not. I have paid $2,000 to insure my gear with a net return of NOTHING. What have I bought? Peace of mind.

Now the other possibility. My gear is stolen. How much of it is stolen is irrelevant. The fact that I make a claim is huge. My insurance company replaces my gear. I paid $2,000 to replace, let us say, all my gear. It looks like I have prevented a $12,000 loss, for only $2,000. Not so fast. The first thing that happens is that I lose my no claim premium rebate. That starts at $0 and grows by $100 for each year I have no claim. I have to count that in the cost of my new camera gear. $500+400+300+200+100 is $1,500 over the next 5 years. Total cost of my "free" gear replacement: insurance - $2,000, deductible - $500 (maybe $0), increased future premiums - $1,500. My replacement gear has cost me $4,000.

The costs are the same whether I had a $2,000 claim or a $12,000 claim. If I make a $2,000 claim, I get my gear replaced at a total cost to me of $4,000. I could have replaced it out-of-pocket twice for what the insurance cost me. If I make a $4,000 claim, I break even in the long run. As I very seldom leave the house with more than one body, two lenses and a flash, my biggest potential loss is 60D+100-400L+70-200 2.8 OS. Grand total new: about $3500. If I get that amount of gear stolen, or dropped in the river every 10 years, having insurance costs me $500 MORE every ten years than replacing it out of pocket.

Situation 2:
I don't buy the rider. The same two possibilities exist. The easy one. No claim. I saved $2,000 over 10 years. The almost as easy one. If my loss is less than $4,000, I am still ahead of the game, NOT HAVING HAD INSURANCE. Larger than that is increasingly less likely as I never carry that much gear.

I have determined that the total cost of insuring my camera gear is not worth it. I have had various amounts of camera gear over the last 40 years. I have never had any of it lost or stolen. I am money ahead for not having insurance on it. Period.

The only thing you really buy with ANY insurance is peace of mind. It is ALWAYS cheaper to go without. I have insurance on my car because I can't AFFORD to take the loss in a heavy claim with lots of property damage and medical bills. I have insurance on my house because I can't AFFORD to replace a burned-to-the ground or tornado destroyed house. I have a $1,000,000 blanket liability policy that protects me over and above my home and auto policies. What do I get for my money: peace of mind. That is invaluable.

To insure $12,000 worth of camera gear, that I am EXTREMELY unlikely to have a claim on, is just wasting money. To spend money on insurance, in the hope of someday breaking even, is not a sound financial move whether I have a claim or not.

As mentioned, I carry $5,000 deductible on my home. Dittos the cars and motorcycle. All together that saves me about $900 per year. I have never, in 40 years of driving and and 30 years of owning a house, had a $5,000 dollar loss. Rough estimates: I averaged a $400 per year savings over the last 35 years. That is roughly $14,000 still in my pocket. Give your money to an insurance company, if that makes you happy. I can spend the $14,000. You can't spend the miniscule amount of peace of mind you are purchasing.

Oh my the numbers!!!

-head asplodes-

thedcmule2 wrote in post #16546858
Oh my the numbers!!!

-head asplodes-

And that is what insurance companies count on.

EOS5DC wrote in post #16546642
You can't spend the miniscule amount of peace of mind you are purchasing.

Not true at all.

I can spend that peace of mind on what I do without being that nervous about it.

I can take the road to Hana and hit some of the falls along the way. I can wade into waist deep water with my 1Dx held over my head knowing that if I slip I at least get the camera replaced, even though I miss the shot.

I can carry my camera through the crush to the Super Bowl and not stress about if one of our two legged predators is going to try to make it his own or if I get it knocked over or splashed with beer at the after game parties, etc.

I can pack along my entire kit to a scout hike, decide what I want on the walk and leave the rest behind knowing that I am safe even if the gear might not be.

I can plop my tripod at the waters edge in SLO for some long exposures without fear about a rogue wave taking the entire thing into the Pacific.

In short, I can do what I want to get the shots I want without worrying about the gear and that is worth way more than $200 a year to me.

I've put $20K into camera kit and I'd hate to have to be picky about how I use it, where I take it and so on based on not spending that relatively small amount.

And, I also don't have the "no claim bonus" nonsense to contend with. The company I'm with doesn't play those silly games so my math is considerably different...

Erik S. Klein wrote in post #16547041
Not true at all.

I can spend that peace of mind on what I do without being that nervous about it.

I can take the road to Hana and hit some of the falls along the way. I can wade into waist deep water with my 1Dx held over my head knowing that if I slip I at least get the camera replaced, even though I miss the shot.

I can carry my camera through the crush to the Super Bowl and not stress about if one of our two legged predators is going to try to make it his own or if I get it knocked over or splashed with beer at the after game parties, etc.

I can pack along my entire kit to a scout hike, decide what I want on the walk and leave the rest behind knowing that I am safe even if the gear might not be.

I can plop my tripod at the waters edge in SLO for some long exposures without fear about a rogue wave taking the entire thing into the Pacific.

In short, I can do what I want to get the shots I want without worrying about the gear and that is worth way more than $200 a year to me.

I've put $20K into camera kit and I'd hate to have to be picky about how I use it, where I take it and so on based on not spending that relatively small amount.

And, I also don't have the "no claim bonus" nonsense to contend with. The company I'm with doesn't play those silly games so my math is considerably different...

You are absolutely correct. I retract that statement. The miniscule amount of peace of mind I'd be purchasing is not worth it to me. I just shoot family and friends, birthdays and baptisms. My gear is subject to none of the potential dangers that yours is. In the end, my claim that insurance is not necessary is as ludicrous as the claim that everyone needs it.