Coverage is specific to model and brand, Zack. We used to carry them, but found that most issues either occur right away or not at all. In the last ten years we've been carrying "all loss" insurance coverage on our gear, and relied successfully on that for repairs not covered once the warranty expires. For us that's a much better investment, since we tend to drop, douse, kick, mash, lose, have stolen, and otherwise abuse cameras in ways not covered by an extended warranty.
Posted by Zack Clothier on August 4, 2010 at 2:11 PM
I was just wondering since the shutter went on my A700 after only a year and four months. Would this have been covered under an extended warranty plan. I've never dropped the camera once, and always keep in stored in a protective case when not in use. I do tend to shoot a lot, however.
Posted by David Bostedo on August 4, 2010 at 2:23 PM
Zack - While it's unfortunate that you had a failure, the return on warranties is actually pretty low. In other words, if you always bought the extended warranties on your cameras, you'd pay more than you would have paid to fix the ones that broke. (Which is obviously how they make money.) So what you're really buying is piece of mind that you won't have to shell out a big sum out of pocket when a break occurs. If you can handle those occasional bills, then I would say the warranty isn't worth it.
Using your mishap as an example, we send the camera out for evaluation and repair estimates. We okay the work and pay, then submit the invoice to our insurance company for full reimbursement. Slick.
I just had the aperture ring fail on a 15-year old 300 f/4. It's so old Nikon had to search a while to find repair parts. Final cost was $230, and I had the lens back in a couple of weeks. Paid in full on my insurance. Meanwhile I'm covered if the lens is stolen, damaged or whatever. I haven't compared to cost of insurance broken down for that one older lens with what it would have cost to keep renewing an extended warranty, but I bet I'm many dollars ahead while much better protected.
I agree with David. Companies usually see a profit margin in the 70% range on extended warrantees. That is why they try so hard to sell them. And you know who is paying that 70% profit margin!
Consumer Reports is generally critical of extended warranty coverage, for most of the reasons folks have described earlier. And I've had nothing but bad experiences with extended warranties (admittedly on non-camera equipment) myself. I use an "all loss" policy from Allstate Insurance on my camera gear.
The only time I ever got an extended warranty it was on a point and shoot camera I bought from a chain electronics retailer. They refused to honor it saying the malfunction was due to impact. I disputed their claim to no avail. In retaliation, I never never bought anything else from them and they soon went out of business.
Posted by Larry Puckett on August 4, 2010 at 7:22 PM
We get ours through PPA (Professional Photographers of America), Larry. It's carried by Marsh Affinity Group Services, a service of Seabury & Smith. We also get our liability, studio and E&O coverage through them. Rates seem very competitive, and in our long history claims are ALWAYS handled quickly and fairly. I know that WPPI and NANPA have group insurance policies for members too, but I don't know the details.
I will say up front that PPA membership is required, and it's expensive at over $300 a year. We use lots of other PPA resources, so it's a good investment for us, but others will likely find more useful services through another organization.
In the past I never purchased the extended warranty. When I bought my Nikon d200 body I bought the Nikon 2yr extended warranty. About $125.00. Two years after purchasing the rubber grips on the body started to peel off. Sent it back an was repaired and shipped No charge. 3 month before the extended warranty was to run out the Camera fell out of my car. It cracked the metal housing and the info view glass fell out. Sent it into Nikon and it was repaired and shipped back to me in 3 weeks NO Charge. I now have a D300s and extended 2yr warranty.
Mark Kraus
Though I generally don't buy into extended warranties, I did with my digital camera because I have it out and about with me all the time. Electronic components are finicky. Even though I'm careful, it is exposed to dampness and salt air and heat - constant changing of lenses and jiggling on hikes.
I have fallen back on the warranty twice and I will continue to purchase one on a camera. One day my camera just stopped working - just over the normal warranty time. I brought it down to the chain store where I purchased it and they sent it out for service. It was easier for them to offer me the a new camera (electronic component). (I'm guessing they just repair and resell). I had my receipt and the newer version of the camera cost less than my original, so I asked for the original purchase amount - got me a new, higher version camera plus some money back which I put toward a new 4-year warranty on the new one. I paid a little extra to finish extending the warranty, but got two additional years on it. It was definitely worth the risk. Of course, it depends on where you buy it and what the store offers for a warranty. The new warranties have a once-a-year cleaning during the 4-year time. I'm out a camera for the 2 weeks it takes, but that's helpful.
Of course, the coverage is not for damage or loss to a camera, so I have also chosen to add coverage on my homeowners to cover loss and damage. Things often happen when you carry something with you all the time. I slipped while carrying my camera - it did not hit the ground, but a small piece of plastic broke on the lens. It was not important until I was ready to go on a photo trip and changed the lens - my large lens would not work at all. Homeowners covered the repair to that.
I'm careful with my equipment, but things do happen. I've been happy with my warranty and insurance! So far my gear has never been stolen (knock on wood), but homeowners covers that if it happens.
I have a Rebel - many of you have more expensive cameras and the warranties are more expensive, so what happened to me may not be worth it for others.
Posted by David Bostedo on August 5, 2010 at 10:32 AM
Despite the experiences above, I still don't think warranties are worth it for direct costs - only for piece of mind and .
Look at it this way : Mark buys the warranties and is very happy because his camera actually broke. For everyone like Mark, there may be 20 people who buy the warranties and never have an issue (businesses DO make a ton of money off of extended warranties). So the odds are that you won't use the warranty, and you'll only be happy you bought it if something actually breaks. And given enough purchases, you'll still be saving money in the long run by not buying the warranties, since their cost will average out to be more than the repair costs.
So what you're getting with the warranty is piece of mind that you, personally, won't get hit with a big repair cost all at once. Instead, you'll likely (unless you're unlucky enough to have several issues) pay even more money over time to guarantee that you're not the person who gets stuck with the huge repair bill. I personally wouldn't rely on individual experiences to make the decision, and instead think about the bigger picture and how much piece of mind you're willing to pay for.
Discussion
12 repliesI just had the aperture ring fail on a 15-year old 300 f/4. It's so old Nikon had to search a while to find repair parts. Final cost was $230, and I had the lens back in a couple of weeks. Paid in full on my insurance. Meanwhile I'm covered if the lens is stolen, damaged or whatever. I haven't compared to cost of insurance broken down for that one older lens with what it would have cost to keep renewing an extended warranty, but I bet I'm many dollars ahead while much better protected.
I will say up front that PPA membership is required, and it's expensive at over $300 a year. We use lots of other PPA resources, so it's a good investment for us, but others will likely find more useful services through another organization.
Mark Kraus
I have fallen back on the warranty twice and I will continue to purchase one on a camera. One day my camera just stopped working - just over the normal warranty time. I brought it down to the chain store where I purchased it and they sent it out for service. It was easier for them to offer me the a new camera (electronic component). (I'm guessing they just repair and resell). I had my receipt and the newer version of the camera cost less than my original, so I asked for the original purchase amount - got me a new, higher version camera plus some money back which I put toward a new 4-year warranty on the new one. I paid a little extra to finish extending the warranty, but got two additional years on it. It was definitely worth the risk. Of course, it depends on where you buy it and what the store offers for a warranty. The new warranties have a once-a-year cleaning during the 4-year time. I'm out a camera for the 2 weeks it takes, but that's helpful.
Of course, the coverage is not for damage or loss to a camera, so I have also chosen to add coverage on my homeowners to cover loss and damage. Things often happen when you carry something with you all the time. I slipped while carrying my camera - it did not hit the ground, but a small piece of plastic broke on the lens. It was not important until I was ready to go on a photo trip and changed the lens - my large lens would not work at all. Homeowners covered the repair to that.
I'm careful with my equipment, but things do happen. I've been happy with my warranty and insurance! So far my gear has never been stolen (knock on wood), but homeowners covers that if it happens.
I have a Rebel - many of you have more expensive cameras and the warranties are more expensive, so what happened to me may not be worth it for others.
Look at it this way : Mark buys the warranties and is very happy because his camera actually broke. For everyone like Mark, there may be 20 people who buy the warranties and never have an issue (businesses DO make a ton of money off of extended warranties). So the odds are that you won't use the warranty, and you'll only be happy you bought it if something actually breaks. And given enough purchases, you'll still be saving money in the long run by not buying the warranties, since their cost will average out to be more than the repair costs.
So what you're getting with the warranty is piece of mind that you, personally, won't get hit with a big repair cost all at once. Instead, you'll likely (unless you're unlucky enough to have several issues) pay even more money over time to guarantee that you're not the person who gets stuck with the huge repair bill. I personally wouldn't rely on individual experiences to make the decision, and instead think about the bigger picture and how much piece of mind you're willing to pay for.