|
All you guys who have insured your gear, especially non-professionally: does your insurer do anything about used equipment, or are you just SOL? I have a lot of used gear with only receipts for one lens and my camera body, which would have 5-6 of my used lenses uncovered.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2011 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
SKULE123 posted:All you guys who have insured your gear, especially non-professionally: does your insurer do anything about used equipment, or are you just SOL? I have a lot of used gear with only receipts for one lens and my camera body, which would have 5-6 of my used lenses uncovered. I had my bag nicked a while ago and it was mostly used equipment. What my insurers (Endsleigh in the UK) said is that anything you can provide to prove you owned the item will help. Pictures of the equipment, accessories which go with the equipment, boxes. I thought I was hosed because I could hardly prove anything but once I had a good think I found I had lots of stuff they were happy to take as proof. So maybe do a picture inventory or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
Amazon, keh, ebay, and used stores should all provide receipts. If you do a cash transaction in person or like paypal someone on a forum then a picture would probably work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 01:38
|
|
|
SKULE123 posted:All you guys who have insured your gear, especially non-professionally: does your insurer do anything about used equipment, or are you just SOL? I have a lot of used gear with only receipts for one lens and my camera body, which would have 5-6 of my used lenses uncovered. I had to provide my agent with serial numbers and prices of all the gear I wanted covered. I didn't have to submit pictures of the hardware, but it couldn't hurt. Also the policy I have covers actual value, not the cost to replace my gear with new equipment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 04:16
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:And the only guy who points that out in the thread gets banned, not even a probate. Well, when you are shaking someone down, you don't want people pointing that out. It's interesting to me - is this the birth of a new form of extortion? In the past, people would threaten sites with DDOS. Now they can threaten them with a flood of negative reviews. How can a photographer (or other small business) protect themselves against this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 04:59
|
|
|
spog posted:Well, when you are shaking someone down, you don't want people pointing that out. I dunno, I think most small businesses would fly under the radar to a group large enough to be able to flood a facebook page or twitter with negative reviews.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I dunno, I think most small businesses would fly under the radar to a group large enough to be able to flood a facebook page or twitter with negative reviews. My thinking is that to DDOS Amazon, or an online casino, you need to put together quite a large network of bots. This takes time, skill and expertise. Plus, a big company is going to have the internal manpower to fight against it. Finally, it is clearly extortion and you will have the police interested. Now, this method is much simpler. You only need for a few hundred (or less) of your group to show that they can flood the photographers facebook page to the point where he either takes it down, or shuts off commenting all together. Many small business are going to rely on the traffic that their facebook pages generates and they don't have the resources to fight this attack. So, all you have to do is show your muscle (flood an online vote, or similar), then give a mild threat (have a handful of these people post negative comments on the webpage) Then some guy emails and says 'hey what special offer can you give me in exchange for free positive advertising on this forum?' and maybe they realise that it is easier to give him a free photoshoot, rather than have to shutdown your virtual storefront for a couple of weeks. Much easier to organise, implement and receive the benefits than large scale extortion. One-man band photographers are going to be particularly vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
spog posted:My thinking is that to DDOS Amazon, or an online casino, you need to put together quite a large network of bots. This takes time, skill and expertise. Plus, a big company is going to have the internal manpower to fight against it. Finally, it is clearly extortion and you will have the police interested. It'd probably be hard to consistently harness forum power unless you can reliably con them into believing that they are fighting the good fight as well as easily silence dissenters. And there's always the off chance that the photographer will show up to your event and decide to just kick you in the balls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 08:56
|
|
|
Local Craigslist ad: Used 200mm Lens - $20 (NEWPORT NEWS) Fully Functional $20 Firm Contact via e-mail I dutifully contacted this clearly legitimate seller via e-mail asking about brand, mount, and aperture. I'm expecting a response equally as informative as the original post. e: aww that's no fun, he actually replied helpfully, with pics and everything: Toyo Optics TOU/FIVE STAR f/4.5 75-200mm Macro zoom lens; K-mount . (Not that I've ever heard of Toyo nor would I have any use for such a lens.) BobTheCow fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Jan 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:e: aww that's no fun, he actually replied helpfully, with pics and everything: That's actually a somewhat reasonable price for that. Not great, not idiotic. Manual focus 80-200 lenses are a dime a dozen. Not that they're bad, just extremely common. I have a theory that if you wait long enough in life, somewhere along the way, someone will offer you one for free just to get it out of their house.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
Late on this, but if I actually get a refund and the finder's fee from my employer from finding my own replacement I'm going to agonize about making the decision between the D7000 and D300s. Only this time, I'll actually be able to purchase one of the cameras.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
Don't have anything to add really, but: If you still had any trust in this man's judgement, digest this: Dorkroom darling Ken Rockwell uses tripods (in bright daylight) and filter protectors.  I don't use no stinking tripods. Nor "UV" filter protectors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2011 23:36
|
|
|
That looks like a terrible boring trip.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
I don't know why anyone would pay Ken Rockwell to teach them photography.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
I couldn't ever go on a photo tour.. having people taking the same pictures at the same place and time as me would make me want to just delete them and say "gently caress it." I'm a unique snowflake, damnit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
VomitOnLino posted:Don't have anything to add really, but: There are a lot of reasons to use a tripod in bright day light 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2011 08:08
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:There are a lot of reasons to use a tripod in bright day light This is the guy who said that VR made tripods completely and absolutely obsolete for everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2011 13:49
|
|
|
I can't wait until ISO renders F/stop irrelevant to everyone who doesn't like to make their background fuzzy. I can't wait until megapixels make any focal length bar fish-eye irrelevant. snap a photo, crop to relevance. I don't really know Ken Rockwell besides that whenever I look up something his site is always first so he is superb at meta tags, but I get real excited sometimes about the future of photography and say dumb poo poo like the above. Also I use a tripod, or clamp for everything because I have a VR tripod head. Your comment hosed with my brain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2011 18:57
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I don't really know Ken Rockwell besides that whenever I look up something his site is always first so he is superb at meta tags, but I get real excited sometimes about the future of photography and say dumb poo poo like the above. Oh god I was already furiously pounding away at my keyboard until I got to this sentence. You misleading poopyface! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
I thought tripods significantly improved the sharpness of landscape and wildlife photography, regardless of lighting... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 02:55
|
|
|
Does anyone have a "go-to" page or quote of Ken's that just shows how much of a tool he is, to show any Ken believers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Does anyone have a "go-to" page or quote of Ken's that just shows how much of a tool he is, to show any Ken believers? I would just link to his actual portfolio gallery
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 04:15
|
|
|
Goggle turns up the Ken Rockwell Sucks flickr page http://www.flickr.com/groups/1166021@N23/ I had never looked at his site until the other day when someone posted about a camera which I then googled. His site came up first so I clicked it. In his review of the camera he complained that it used SD cards which apparently suck. His statement was backed up by his sd card speed test. In it he compares a couple cf cards to a group of sd cards and runs a few tests on them. This would normally be fine, but he fails to point out that the fastest CF card is an Extreme4 while the fastest SD card is an Extreme 3. If you look at the results from the Extreme3 CF and SD you can see that their performance is nearly identical. Even further, the E3 SD performed almost as well as the E4 CF when it was plugged directly into his computers SD slot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
I really do think he's just an incredible troll. Like ten years from now some office manager in southern California is going to write a tell all for Wired about how he created this persona just to piss off the entire internet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
Rockwell's tripod thing is specifically regarding digital, not film photography. I have no idea if he's shooting digital or film in those shots but he loves his slides so it's probably an F6 or some such.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 07:50
|
|
|
His about page sort of admits to being a troll:quote:I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 15:10
|
|
|
Well, I'm sold.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
Nothing super-groundbreaking here, just thought this article was kind of amusing: 'The sexy lady' and other hotel photo tricks http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/01/19/hotel.photo.fakeouts/index.html?hpt=C2
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
HPL posted:Nothing super-groundbreaking here, just thought this article was kind of amusing: Marketing doesn't live up to reality? I am shocked and appalled.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:His about page sort of admits to being a troll: Ken is the best troll quote:Aliens from other worlds regularly visited our planet and interacted with both primitive and European peoples from about 900 through 1200 AD. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nm/aliens/index.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
Ken is the best troll http://kenrockwell.com/tech/everything-sucks.htm VomitOnLino posted:Don't have anything to add really, but: http://sberzin.slickpic.com/a/CentralCoast2010/photo#9122 HPL posted:Nothing super-groundbreaking here, just thought this article was kind of amusing:
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
Destruction of Canon gear. http://paradoxoff.com/mass-destruction-of-the-canon-cameras.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
Makes sense from a corporate perspective, but still, drat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Destruction of Canon gear. http://paradoxoff.com/mass-destruction-of-the-canon-cameras.html I would rather look at goatse than that again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Destruction of Canon gear. http://paradoxoff.com/mass-destruction-of-the-canon-cameras.html The amount of poo poo companies throw away is mind-boggling. They could have easily sold this with no warranty at a massive discount and been better off than just smashing it all. So wasteful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 23:43
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:The amount of poo poo companies throw away is mind-boggling. They could have easily sold this with no warranty at a massive discount and been better off than just smashing it all. So wasteful. The problem is that scammers would buy that stuff and eBay it. The company has probably been through that whole song and dance before and that's probably why they're smashing that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
HPL posted:The problem is that scammers would buy that stuff and eBay it. The company has probably been through that whole song and dance before and that's probably why they're smashing that poo poo. Shoe companies do this all the time and punch a hole in the sole in case you try to resell it. They could very easily put some sort of unremovable mark to indicate what it was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
Paint that poo poo florescent orange and sell it for pennies on the dollar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Shoe companies do this all the time and punch a hole in the sole in case you try to resell it. They could very easily put some sort of unremovable mark to indicate what it was. A smashed in lens is a pretty good mark.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Since it was shipping damage I am guessing insurance was paid out and the insurance probably made them destroy the products in order to get a pay out, just a guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2011 00:23
|
|