OMG 1Ds MK3 hit the concrete

TheHoff wrote in post #7397861
Please... you've been on POTN long enough. This thread is going at least another 4 pages.

I don't know Hoff...At this rate we just might catch this one

40D Burst Rate Not Hitting 6.5 FPS (

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

dilorenzo1954 wrote in post #7398482
I don't know Hoff...At this rate we just might catch this one

40D Burst Rate Not Hitting 6.5 FPS (

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page):p

Lightrules lives!!!

Unfortunately, that thread has taken a rather crappy turn of late.

i'm actually kinda curious about the automotive insurance comparison. since i'm still a dirt poor college student, i opted to only purchase the insurance policy that covers the repairs or replacement of the OTHER person's car in the event of an collision. it's risky, but my finances are what they are. state law requires that i have AT LEAST this type of car insurance. in relation to the situation that has been described, why is this necessary? i can assure you that i will never intentionally collide my vehicle into someone else's. if any accident occurs while i am out on the road, why am i liable for damages when this lady is not?

i can completely understand the concept of an accident. i won't need anyone to explain to me that the lady didn't mean for it to happen. i just think it's comical in a bittersweet way that the camera setup that was damaged is worth much more than my car is yet the law requires and implies that i am responsible for any collisions i am involved with when it is nearly universally agreed that this lady is faultless (and even some who insist that she did too much by even apologizing.)

alt4852 wrote in post #7398814
i'm actually kinda curious about the automotive insurance comparison. since i'm still a dirt poor college student, i opted to only purchase the insurance policy that covers the repairs or replacement of the OTHER person's car in the event of an collision. it's risky, but my finances are what they are. state law requires that i have AT LEAST this type of car insurance. in relation to the situation that has been described, why is this necessary? i can assure you that i will never intentionally collide my vehicle into someone else's. if any accident occurs while i am out on the road, why am i liable for damages when this lady is not?

i can completely understand the concept of an accident. i won't need anyone to explain to me that the lady didn't mean for it to happen. i just think it's comical in a bittersweet way that the camera setup that was damaged is worth much more than my car is yet the law requires and implies that i am responsible for any collisions i am involved with when it is nearly universally agreed that this lady is faultless (and even some who insist that she did too much by even apologizing.)

The fact that you might get into an accident does not mean that your insurance will pay for the other person's car. Liability insurance only pays the damages to the other party if you are found at fault. If the accident isn't your fault, then you won't pay. There are some variations between states on this in terms of contributory or comparative negligence in the accident.

However, you might also ask why auto insurance is required and why personal property insurance isn't. A large part of the reason is that there are many drivers on the road and insurance protects against personal injury and property damages that can be extremely costly. Society, basically, needs auto insurance. If there's an accident and there's no auto insurance, the injured party would have to pursue court remedy on a person who might not be able to afford anyway... in steps the auto insurance company who can pay. Cars are a much larger issue than a camera... we're not only talking about damage to property, but also people who can be hurt or killed.

alt4852 wrote in post #7398814
i'm actually kinda curious about the automotive insurance comparison. since i'm still a dirt poor college student, i opted to only purchase the insurance policy that covers the repairs or replacement of the OTHER person's car in the event of an collision. it's risky, but my finances are what they are. state law requires that i have AT LEAST this type of car insurance. in relation to the situation that has been described, why is this necessary? i can assure you that i will never intentionally collide my vehicle into someone else's. if any accident occurs while i am out on the road, why am i liable for damages when this lady is not?

This depends on your state.

Here in Michigan we have no-fault insurance. That means that each motorist must carry liability insurance but can decide if they want collision and comprehensive on their own car.

In practice this means that the actual fault in an accident matters very little. Each person's insurance pays for the repairs to their car (if they carry insurance) no matter who was at fault. The extent of fault here is that the insurance of the at fault person typically pays the deductible (up to $500) of the other person to make them whole.

dilorenzo1954 wrote in post #7398482
I don't know Hoff...At this rate we just might catch this one

40D Burst Rate Not Hitting 6.5 FPS (

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page):p

Lightrules lives!!!

number six wrote in post #7398812
Unfortunately, that thread has taken a rather crappy turn of late.

Ya'll suck!!

Leave me out of this one!

number six wrote in post #7398812
Unfortunately, that thread has taken a rather crappy turn of late.

Yes, I notice this on POTN ~~ it's regular user's way of making the topic OT in an attempt to get it closed by the mods.

On Dpreview there would be a big fight going on, instead here, we get comment "like this thread is amazing in length", "Sure is" "Maybe it'll best the last one" "This thread is going OT"

IMO it's bullying and harassment and I'd register wasteful posts as such.

Eagle wrote in post #7382709
X2

And it really sucks that as a society when anything happens the first thing a lot of people thing of is "Take them to court and sue them". And that lawyers take every case like this, and the courts allow them. SAD

Absolutely! Society loses big-time when it becomes increasingly litigious.

FFS, when are people willing to accept that accidents happen, or take responsibility for their own culpability?

nuffi wrote in post #7402528
...
FFS, when are people willing to accept that accidents happen, or take responsibility for their own culpability?

Am I to interpret that as that you think the camera owner is to blame here?

If I were clumsy enough to swipe someone's camera off the table and break it I would of course pay for the repairs. This is no different from for instance a traffic accident, if you're the cause of the accident you pay.

My renter's insurance; I made sure that everything is covered everywhere, your fault, my fault, nobodies fault.

FretNoMore wrote in post #7402680
This is no different from for instance a traffic accident, if you're the cause of the accident you pay.

Agreed.

May I quote part of the title of this thread: "OMG."

I mean, let's make a mountain out of a molehill.

I dropped a 1DsMKII, all EIGHT GRAND of it when it was new, onto a concrete sidewalk. It was my own fault. The top of the camera body around the hot shoe cracked, the hot shoe was bent, the focus mechanism was knocked out of alignment.

FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS later my camera was good as new, and I even got to keep the cracked top as a souvenir of my carelessness.

If your friend can afford an EIGHT GRAND camera, he can surely cough up the dough to have it fixed and move on with his life.

Suing? Give me a break. Accidents happen every day.

Insurance? Please, let's make a claim and see our premiums go up and wind up paying for the repair over and over again in increased cost to insure.

Sh*t happens, plain and simple. He was careless, the woman perhaps was in a rush. It's life. Get on with it. Could have been worse. She could have snatched it and ran and gotten away with it, kind of like the dude in Ho Chi Min City in Full Metal Jacket.

me

that sucks, and i started reading this thread, and got overwhelmed by all the responses of sue her, go after her, etc. Remember that we are the camera fanatics. for all we know, she probably thought it was a $100 point and shoot (despite the comment somebody made that since she was a BB employee, should should know its value because they sell 40D and 50D)...

What has the value got to do with anything? How is it more OK to break someone's point-and-shoot and walk away without taking responsibility than if it is a high-cost dSLR?

Is it acceptable behaviour these days to push someone's camera to the ground and just say 'Oops' and walk away?