What are your opinions on the best security safe for these expensive cameras?

[Texas Dave]

I've realized that my photography hobby is just one kicked in door away from being over.

I was wondering what your opinions are on how to protect such investments?

Also, what is available for insurance for camera equipment? Is camera equipment covered under home owners insurance in case of thief or fire?

Thank!

[Mike Buckley]

You would need to read the coverage of your home owners insurance to know the extent to which your photography equipment is covered. Some policies have limitations. Even so, you can get it fully insured even if you have to pay for a special rider. As an example, if I accidentally damage my camera equipment, certain causes of the damage are covered (such as dropping it, if I remember correctly) and certain causes are not covered.

I don't do anything special to protect anything in my home from theft other than that I have deadbolt locks on all of the doors to my home and all of the wood doors are solid as opposed to hollow. Kicking in such a door might look easy in the movies but not so in reality.

My biggest vulnerability to theft is the glass windows and two glass doors. It's relatively easy to break through those and that happened once, though nothing was stolen. A maid service once unlocked a window, returned the next day through that window, and made a little bit of a mess but I don't remember anything being stolen. Now that I've written this post, I'm sure my luck is that much closer to running out.

I store photos offsite of my entire house inventory, which of course includes photography equipment. That's in case I need to provide proof of ownership to an insurance company in case of fire, theft or whatever.

[Manfred M]

Dave - check with your insurance company regarding insurance coverage. Usually with expensive equipment, they will want the items to be listed and covered under an additional rider (nicely said; they will charge you more money). The other thing I've heard is that if you are planning to use your gear for commercial work (i.e. if you make any money. even just cost recovery for something you do for a friend), your policy can be void because you used your camera for "business" and need business insurance.

As for storage; my gear is stored in a place where a "grab and dash" type thief is unlikely to look for it / find it; but if someone took their time and went through the house methodically, then they would find it.

[Mike Buckley]

my gear is stored in a place where a "grab and dash" type thief is unlikely to look for it

Great idea! I'm going to start doing that.

[PhotomanJohn]

One thought is a large gun safe. I have even seen them at Costco. I am sure they are readily available in Texas.

John

[NorthernFocus]

We have a rider on our home owner's insurance specifically for my photo gear. I'm not so good about keeping the inventory updated but I do register new purchases with Nikon on their website. So if push comes to shove I suppose that would suffice. Regarding security, I thought about the gunsafe route but that adds additional complications plus is an obvious target for any determined thieves. I don't store all of my gear in a single location so am somewhat protected from the aforementioned crash and grab thief but not from a determined and thorough burglar.

[Kodiak]

•
The first thing to do to protect your equipment is remove or dissimulate all
trademarks or brand names from gear, straps, bags, wear no logo clothes
and please no brands on your car.

I was stolen gear twice in my life: once in the south of France and once in
Austria. In both cases, the police concluded the perpetrators have seen me
working and followed me as long as needed until they got the chance to open
the car in impunity! In both cases, as well, the car was no more than 30 min.
out of my sight.

At home or studio, I haven't yet had any problem…touch wood!

[Mike Buckley]

In both cases, the police concluded the perpetrators have seen me working and followed me as long as needed until they got the chance to open the car in impunity!

I doubt that removing brand names and the like would have prevented either theft from happening. They probably identified you as a potential target because of the amount and size of your equipment.

I almost always keep all of my gear on my body while traveling including my five lenses. (You might require using enough gear that keeping all of it with you at all times is impossible.) Any thief will have to personally steal it from me, in which case I'll be glad to hand it over.

[ajohnw]

Our house and content insurance has cover for personal property that can include such things as cameras and fishing rods or just about anything else. I'd guess most do. The important thing is to make sure that the full value really is insured because if a claim is made and they find that people are under insured they wont pay. What i did is to do some sums and add some - a fair amount - and told them we had £12k's worth of personal bits and pieces. I do have some worries if some one managed to carry my lathe away I wouldn't want a new one only a replacement as new ones aren't available - I did explain but do wonder about what would happen if it did go.

Bit of a rant.
Fishing rods - watching some one using a beach caster and following them home after a night fishing session hoping that they leave the gear in the car is pretty popular in the UK. I'd guess that goes on with camera gear as well. People also sometimes have there fishing gear taken off them - one answer to that used by some is to keep a lemon Jiff squeezey thingy handy as that apparently really stings if some one gets it in their eyes. I'm not sure if I believe that but maybe the threat is enough. At one point squirting super glue in peoples eyes to grab their bits and pieces hit a peak - since that my fishing knife comes out if I feel even slightly threatened.

John
-

[DanK]

I second the suggestion that you contact your home insurance company and also carefully read the exclusions in your policy. My policy doesn't require a rider for photo equipment, but many policies do. It covers the usual losses a homeowner's policy covers, e.g., theft and fire, but not errors of my own, like dropping equipment. For something like this (bodies depreciate rapidly), it is nice to have replacement value coverage, if you are willing to pay the extra premium, which is often modest.

I have to say that I usually don't worry about theft that much when I am up and about, unless I am in questionable locations. I do worry about it when I travel to areas with low incomes or high rates of property crimes. In fact, I am thinking of buying a tiny Canon S120 or some such and leaving my real camera at home when I travel to South America in a couple of months, just so I don't have to think about it. On the other hand, I carried only an old P&S when I went to Chile for work a few years ago, and when I spent a day hiking around Valparaiso, I was kicking myself all day for not bringing the read deal.

[ajohnw]

There can be complications relating to the maximum value of a single item - look carefully for that. It wasn't a problem in out case.

If some one has problems from time to time a monitored alarm system will soon deter them. As a last fast car fling I bought a Suburu. The hatchback version so it wasn't noticed for some time. When it was we had a series of attempted break ins. Once the alarm was fitted they had 2 more goes and touch wood have left us alone since. I get discount of the insurance for this but it doesn't come near covering the monthly cost. We are away a lot so it's worth having anyway.

John
-

[Flyboy]

This may not seem like too useful advice, but I have a roadbike. Listed @ just under 3 grand in 2000. I use it constantly, I have a car but the bike is my main squeeze.

A friend wanted to sell me an Italian bike - Pinarello (he's just started as a sponsored rider) that is an order of magnitude better, but I did not buy because I would be a nervous wreck worrying about it. I'd have to have a lock which weighed the same as the bike. My wife has one but she won't use it in the rain etc. etc. Too bad cause it's a good deal on a dynamite set of wheels.

[William W]

Re Insurance:

I think that one has to weigh up the value of the premium, against the risk that ACTUALLY EXISTS and the cost of meeting that risk should it turn into a reality.

I have $20,000,000 Public Liability Insurance in regard to my Professional Photography activities which costs me peanuts: but to insure all my gear would send me bankrupt: well not really bankrupt, but to insure every item of gear for ‘replacement’ would cost a lot of money that is otherwise spent more effectively.

Also it is very important to read the details of one’s Home Owner Insurance Content’s Policy and to select an Insurance Coverage which is suitable for one's own particular needs.

It occurs to me that Insurance Coverages vary considerably: but (information gained talking to Insurance Brokers), policy holder generally DO NOT shop around and DO NOT strive for tailored policies to suit their specific needs.

Itemised serial numbers and a folder containing all the receipts for purchase is a very good idea.

***

Re Security: I think that much security is gained by not drawing attention to oneself or one’s possessions. But it is the case that many people are ‘showy’ about what they own, because being showy makes them feel good.

WW

[William W]

. . .If some one has problems from time to time a monitored alarm system will soon deter them. . .

Specifically responding to this opinion: I disagree.

A Local Alarm System with many locally positioned noise makers and a direct area illumination triggered by the intruder is more a deterrent and a better safety net to preserve one's goods from theft for mostly ALL domestic to small area and small value industrial and business sites in suburban or city populated areas.

Research by various Institutes of Criminology, verify this opinion: although Security Monitoring Companies often proffer a different opinion.

WW

[rpcrowe]

A great primary alarm system and insurance against robbery/intrusion...



Law enforcement personnel will tell you that the very best solution to robbery/home intrusion is a dog that barks. If it is a large dog with a deep bark, that is a plus...

Even my 55-pound (~25-kilo) Goldendoodle who is the sweetest gal in the world will deter a thief/intruder when she barks.



I had a sheriff's deputy come to my door one evening after dark. My Maltese were the early warning barkers and then my doodle chimed in with her deep and thunderous bark, the deputy said, "I certainly would not want to intrude into your house..."

BTW: If you want to be safe when traveling, forget about Europe and visit China! Most of China is pretty darn safe for tourists...

[dennybeall]

Some good advice so far. It's all about RISK really. Normal risk says have insurance that covers your gear, more risk then add an alarm system, more risk have the system monitored and put up a lot of signs outside attesting to that fact. If you have enough gear and perhaps some guns also then get a large heavy gun safe and bolt it to the floor.
Most important is having good records and keeping them off site so in case of theft or fire you can put in a valid insurance claim.

[William W]

I agree with Richard that a dog with a deep bark (and that is well trained) is has an advantage over a local alarm system with only local noise makers in so far as the dog usually starts his "alarm" before the would be intruder makes the intrusion into the building. I also agree that Criminology research factors a well trained house dog highly as a deterrent against: trespass; break, enter and theft. However, I specifically mentioned 'direct area illumination' - and that was referring to both building external and building internal illumination. The advantage that exterior illumination has over a dog, is, that there is less likelihood of many false alarms proceeding to a problem for the owner; whereas a dog who's bark is a consistent 'false alarm' is more likely to be sanctioned by local laws.


On the other hand, exterior illumination is virtually useless security during daylight hours - and a well trained dog has a big advantage in this case.


But on the flip side - the dog is somewhat incapacitated as a security alarm if the owner is away for extended periods and the residence is vacant.


I think that the training level and the capacity, competence and intelligence of the dog are the important factors: and there are many well trained and very competent dogs.


WW

[loosecanon]

I hand to the insurance person a list of all my camera gear, with estimated replacement value and serial numbers. I work on the basis that whilst in the house my entire collection is covered. When out and about then only some of my kit is with me, even on extended trips. So I make sure I have all risks cover for what I may have away from the house, but all items I own.

I think to give a list in advance is a good idea, then they know the risk they are insuring for, no questions later, and of course they have the serial numbers so if I ring up saying an item is lost I don't need to find the number when away.

[Adrian]

2 points:

We travel around the world with about £20k of camera gear when we go on holiday. This costs about £300 per year to insure for all risks worldwide with a specialised camera insurer. We are not pro; it is cheaper for amateurs. Usually the biggest risk is having all your kit stolen / lost / dropped in the sea or something similar / when travelling.

Dogs are a great deterrent against people who are afraid of dogs. Burglars who own dogs have no fear of them. What they have is a plastic bag with some poisoned, but fragrant (to a dog), meat. Dogs like eating meat more than barking. They like people who feed them and who do not act frightened. Don't delude yourself about dogs.

[William W]

. . . Dogs are a great deterrent against people who are afraid of dogs. etc . . .

Nice point.

The discussion seems now to be moving from area of ‘opportunistic burglary’ to ‘targeted burglary’ – i.e. ‘we need access to these specific premises for this particular reason’ as opposed to 'we’ll knock over this place and see what we get, aw, on second thoughts no we won’t the house down the road is as easier target.'

The crimes may be the same, but the procedure is different.

Not that it was defined that we were only talking about ‘opportunistic burglary’: but I am just making the point that there are two general types of burglary.

The local alarm and local area illumination can be thwarted too, if the desire is strong enough.

WW