Very annoyed now, my day is completely spoilt!

[Guest]

Had an email this morning from a friend who lives in the oldest rainforest in the world. Having been waxing lyrically about some of the trees around here going into blossom (our cherry and pair trees have already done so, the rest are not far off now) she said she would like to see some pictures of them.

So I dutifully went out into the back garden, set up the tripod and prepared to shoot. Normally for this kind of thing I'd use my old 50mm macro but because of my lack of mobility at the moment, using the tripod and even hand held shooting is a bit of a PITA so I made my life easier by mounting my gorgeous new Carl Zeiss 16-80 which I have only had for a few weeks. Much easier to use a zoom at the moment.

Set up the tripod, connected the remote release and fired off a series of shots. Then I dismounted the camera and moved under the tree to get some close up shots of the blossom. They look decent enough on the camera screen (haven't seen them on the computer yet) but I quickly realised the 50 macro would be more at home doing this. So I remounted the camera and wandered out the front to do the cherry tree, intending to come back later armed with the 50. Everything set, I went to pick up the remote commander and the camera and lens topples off onto the driveway, landing lens first so it's good night Mr Carl Zeiss - that was £430 well spent (now nearer £500 post price rises).

I haven't even checked the camera yet, I'm still furious.

[Antares_9]

Simon, you may recall a TV series a while back starring Simon Callow and Brenda Blethyn, I believe it was called chance in a million. Sorry to hear about the lens though, you must be immensely irritated.

[mbird]

Very annoyed is putting it mildly I should say Simon!

If there is any damage to lens or camera, try calling Norfolk Cameras in Dereham, as I have heard they are good for repairs etc.

Can you claim on your home contents insurance for any damage?

[Guest]

Simon, you may recall a TV series a while back starring Simon Callow and Brenda Blethyn, I believe it was called chance in a million. Sorry to hear about the lens though, you must be immensely irritated.

Just a little

And it comes with a double dose of irony too - firstly the 50 macro lens I would normally use for such shots would have survived the incident undamaged because the front element on a macro lens is recessed so far into the body that the gravel stones would not have connected with it - it's also around 20 years old so it wouldn't have hurt so much to buy an updated version. Secondly, it leaves me without a standard lens because the 24-105 it replaced was posted YESTERDAY to its new owner, having been sold on Ebay. Given that my only escapes from the house of late have been specifically to do some shooting here and there (because it's something I enjoy and look forward to) the loss of my key lens is a heck of a blow, not to mention the large amount of cash it cost.

If there is any damage to lens or camera, try calling Norfolk Cameras in Dereham, as I have heard they are good for repairs etc.

Can you claim on your home contents insurance for any damage?

Well I am looking at my options. The driveway is gravel so the impact rather lower than a solid concrete drive would have caused. The apparent damage to the Zeiss lens is therefore limited to significant chipping on the front element. I have read elsewhere that Zeiss lenses use a plain glass front element with their patented T* coating against lens flare etc. Perhaps it will be possible to get this front element replaced - but by whom and what would it cost? You can bet it won't be cheap and you can pretty much bet that Sony won't allow a local camera shop access to the parts etc to do the work, it will almost certainly have to go back to them. Even then, it'll just be a repair job on a lens which has been bounced off the driveway so I have no idea what other, less visible damage there might be. It only needs to knock the focus alignment out just slightly to completely negate the whole point of buying an expensive Zeiss lens in the first place.

I have similar concerns about the camera body - it is an assembly of precision optical equipment and it's just been bounced from 5ft up. There is no telling what problems this might cause down the line. And it could hardly have come at a worse time - our cash flow this month is so bad that Susan is having to alternate which car she drives to work because we don't have enough left in the bank to fill up the tank before I get paid (next week)! Fixing broken cameras is a long way down the priority list! Not happy!

The insurance idea had crossed my mind and I'll look into but I'm already fighting a claim for £6k (most of which we've already shelled out) from our travel insurance people (AIG, oh the joy) who have gone very quiet since receiving the claim form, not to mention the continuous arrival of new bills from the hospital in Innsbruck they seem to be just plucking out of thin air. In short, this is s**t I could be doing without - using the camera is my release from all this, it isn't meant to be part of the problem.

A nice cup of tea, a sit down and some deep breathing are required, methinks.

[pks1702]

I have a 10D and a Sigma 18-200mm you can borrow Simon if you need something to keep you occupied in the short term.

I know nothing about Sony/Zeiss but Canon have a main service centre owned and run by them and a network of authorised ones across the country, maybe Sony have similar.

Sony main service centre http://www.sony.co.uk/article/id/1218032872969

Or you could make use of your updated German fluency http://www.zeiss.com/c12567a8003b58b9/C ... 0000584440

Either way it is a b*gger

[pks1702]

Said Programme

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmYfYaqOWAw

[Guest chriscraft]

hi S imon,sorry to hear of more whoo,s,

as regards to the body ,just slap a len,s on it, and give it a go with some still life,should show any damage/light leaks ect,if it s ok now and works well ,can,t see it bieng a problem later.I now how you feel ,i dropped my nikon onto concrete last week,with a 70-300mm atached,i thought that was it,especialy when the lens refused to come off.I asked a friend what to do ,he said you just have to give the len,s some stick,to get it off,which with much trepidation i did,it made some nasty noises,then released.Foutunatly after some test shots all seems ok and the lens is ok too,phew.The bodys ok just a little nick in the magnesium next to bkt utton.

[jillR]

hi simon

that is bad news

you are welcome to borrow my canon 1000d if it helps, i know its not a patch on

your grear but it may still get you out and it will show me what can really be done

when you know whats what.

jill

[Guest]

Thanks for the offer of substitute cameras and lenses, it's very kind. Things aren't quite that bad though - I do have a Tamron 17-50/2.8 which is a superb lens and on a par with the Zeiss in many respects. It's a bit short to be a walkaround lens but it's all I've got now and it's far from the end of the world. I've also got a Sigma hyperzoom of my own identical to Perry's which I could use if the Tamron really does turn out to be too short. It's not in the same league as the Tammy or Zeiss for IQ but it's a whole lot better than nothing.

I tested the body and lens this afternoon and they appear to function normally, though as the chips are visible in the viewfinder they definitely will be to the sensor so the lens will have to go back to Sony. I'll check the images over tomorrow in Lightroom to make sure that aside from the marks caused by the chipped lens IQ is otherwise unaffected. The insurance company, btw, just laughed - I'd need two further policies to be covered for dropping my camera. Pity for them the policy is up next month - let the phone calls begin....

[mbird]

That's a good point with the Insurance Simon. My policy with Esure is also up next month, and whilst they state the policy covers individual personal items up to £1500 I'm not sure if photographic equipment is included. My rucksack and contents are probably just about at that limit, so I need to check this out.

I saved £150 on my motor insurance by going away from Esure after 4 years with them, so I wonder if the same will be true on my household?

[Guest]

Well policy is with the nodding dog, or in this case the shaking its head dog. I fell down on two points - firstly, a camera is considered a personal possession not part of the household contents (i.e. like furniture), secondly I don't possess accidental damage cover and bouncing it off the driveway was considered accidental damage. But they were a bit inconsistent though - for example they said I would have been covered if the camera had been damaged by one of "the big six" (i.e. house burns down, gets washed away, camera got nicked etc) despite implying that the policy only covered things which belonged to the house rather than to individuals. It all sounds a bit vague, apart from the point about it not being covered!

[mbird]

Whew

Well I just checked, and with Esure I am covered for £2500 accidental damage to personal possessions, whether at home or away, with a maximum of £1500 for any one individual item. I have also done a bit of scouting around, and Esure are still the cheapest for me, even beating Tesco's standard policy (which doesn't have accidental damage).

At least that has set my mind at rest, not that it helps you I'm afraid Simon. The moral, I suppose, for anyone spending wedges of cash on cameras and lenses, is to check you policies before it's too late.

[Guest]

Just trying to catch up, and have just seen this thread - what a nightmare Simon.

On the subject of insurance, if anyone accumulates a lot of gear it is worth investigating the comparison between (i) increased premiums on the household policy when you list specific valuable items as against (ii) a specialist photographic policy. My photo policy covers theft from cars and accidental damage to my photo gear and laptop, as well as home-based risks. For most people, though, the home policy will be cheaper and quite adequate even if you have to list a few items over the threshold and pay extra. Watch out for theft from vehicles though.

Bruce

[pks1702]

Just reviewing my insurance on my camera equipment but it seems my current insurer (household) is now not keen to cover my photography kit as it is above the threshold

Bruce (or others) could I ask if you have any recommendations for specialist Photographic Insurers

Many thanks

[Guest]

Spooky, I was about to revive this thread myself. And I'm also interested in the answers to Perry's question.

Anyway, having heard nothing from Sony (they should have had the lens since last Tuesday) I phoned yesterday to enquire and they confirmed they did have it and the paperwork was being sent out in the post yesterday. Sure enough I got it this morning. So I guess we'll see what happens next.

What was that you say.... something about a "dee ninety"?

[Guest]

My insurance is with Imaging Insurance, and I have been very happy with them - but no claims have been needed I'm pleased to say. Other specialist companies include Photoguard, Aaduki and Towergate. You'll have to Google them I'm afraid ...

Bruce

[Guest]

Three years ago I had an office fire and lost everything, and I mean EVERYTHING!

I have been using an insurance agent who is very good.

My gear ( not this camera equipment at I have now ) was insured and the payout for computer equipment was over £4500 ( their max. amount for this type of claim ) with no problems.

Plus a rebuild of the office interior.

This made me ask question, as I bought the 5D and Lens just after the fire. I had to prove what the the replacement cost would be, supply serial numbers and details.

It is now covered on my House content insurance as any seperate item(s) would be, like any jewelery or works of art etc.

So at present I am happy, and hope I never have to go through with any claims.

Time will tell.

[pks1702]

Goodness me Paul that shows the value of Insurance.

Thanks Bruce and I do note your comment that you have not had to claim. One of the things with insurance is how good they are when you actually need to claim; some seem to be competitive but wriggle to not pay out even with a long history of no claims.

[Guest]

Got an invoice from the scumbags (aka Sony) this morning - not the £112 on their repair form but £240.... oh and a bill for £60 if I refuse the repair.

£400 for the whole lens, but £240 to replace just the front element? The thieving b******ds. Well I guess I have the choice of either spending £240 but at least getting a cracking good lens back or simply burning £60 and having no walkaround lens (which would in effect also mean burning the £400 it cost to buy it in the first place.

Another visit to WE might be in order this weekend, followed by a visit to Ebay.

[jillR]

hi simon

that sucks

jill

[mbird]

That is disgraceful. A strong letter of complaint should be sent I reckon.

[Guest]

I was thinking the same. Trouble is, they only give you a few days to accept or they return the lens, together with the bill for doing nothing. So tomorrow I am going to have phone up and give them the go ahead. It leaves me feeling all warm and fuzzy inside - not!

In other news, I did go to WE this weekend and had another good play with a D90. I also had a good play with the Sony A700 the outgoing mid range model in the Alpha system - and I have to say it was a gorgeous piece of kit. Its usability made the D90 seem pure Greek to me and it had quick access to all the functions I use right at my fingers tips. The D90, on the other hand, well let's just say when I had a proper play I found that there were some very curious design decisions. I'd found it quirky before but figured I was just unused to Nikon's way of thinking and would come to understand it in time. But closer examination revealed too many things buried deep in menu systems which really should be right at the surface and on the A700 they were. Indeed the sales assistant (who was an older guy and a proper enthusiast himself rather than a Jessops automaton - and a Nikon shooter at that) said that the A700 was a big step above the D90 and more akin to the D300 which was why the D90 was still menu driven. Indeed even DP Review in their review of the D90 cite the A700 as the way Nikon should have done things. He said that although Sony is most popular in the entry level segment they are still selling a few A700's even though most people know it's being replaced any day now.

So I still hate Sony, more so perhaps, but I can't deny that the equipment is good. Indeed I could really have done with an A700 at Somerleyton Hall, there is nothing like the constantly changing conditions I faced there to bring home how useful it would be to have a camera with everything at your finger tips. I'm not going to buy one though, I'm still sticking to my plan to wait and see what they do next before making my next move and going to Nikon is still not out of the question either, but the D90 isn't quite what I first thought on closer inspection. I know a couple of folks with D80's, with a bit of luck I might be able to handle one out in the field which will be much better than just fiddling in a shop - I don't imagine the D90 does a great deal that the D80 doesn't. I tried LiveView on the D90, btw, and I could have made a cup of tea in the time it took to focus!

[Guest]

The one which sticks in mind was switching from single sensor AF to other AF modes, such as wide area. It wasn't just that, but that was one which sprang to mind. I also found that some of the buttons on the top were in such awkward positions (and you have to press and hold them all whilst rotating one or other control selector) that you had to completely change your grip on the camera to be able to push them, and then adjust your grip again to carry on shooting.

Of course I realised that the first time and just put it down to be lack of familiarity, but having to go hunting in menus was annoying. I have to do that to some extent with my current camera but that cost less than half was a D90 does and is kind of a given with entry level kit. I suppose no one camera can be perfect for everyone!