I damaged a rented camera. Thoughts?

David W. Richardson said:
And their refusal to give it to you doesn't absolve you from paying for the damages.
Click to expand...

lol you have to write a disclosure on everything...

Never said I wouldn't pay for the camera... having the camera in salt water is pretty much means the odds are its gone... now Panavision in the old days always said bring the camera back in salt water and they have been able to repair the camera... but that was a film camera with barely any electronics in it...

Again if you purchased insurance... then you're insurance will cover the damage minus your deductible...

Yes the person who damaged the camera in the first place needs to cover the cost of repair or replacement... if they had insurance when they rented the camra... but I'm pretty sure my insurance company is going to ask for proof of some kind that the camera isn't repaired and put back onto the shelf...
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
Never said I wouldn't pay for the camera... having the camera in salt water is pretty much means the odds are its gone... now Panavision in the old days always said bring the camera back in salt water and they have been able to repair the camera... but that was a film camera with barely any electronics in it...
Click to expand...

Used to hear stories from back in the day of guys that shot for local stations going to the beach for hurricane coverage and being told by the engineers if the cameras ever got drenched by saltwater they were to get a big trash bag put the camera in it and fill it with distilled water IMMEDIATELY and the cameras could(possibly) be saved. It's not the water that does the damage, it's the salt and minerals.
 
Run&Gun said:
Used to hear stories from back in the day of guys that shot for local stations going to the beach for hurricane coverage and being told by the engineers if the cameras ever got drenched by saltwater they were to get a big trash bag put the camera in it and fill it with distilled water IMMEDIATELY and the cameras could(possibly) be saved. It's not the water that does the damage, it's the salt and minerals.
Click to expand...

But 'back in the day', cameras were largely mechanical. It's the digital age, and I don't know if that same advice would work on today's cameras.
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
lol you have to write a disclosure on everything...

Never said I wouldn't pay for the camera... having the camera in salt water is pretty much means the odds are its gone... now Panavision in the old days always said bring the camera back in salt water and they have been able to repair the camera... but that was a film camera with barely any electronics in it...

Again if you purchased insurance... then you're insurance will cover the damage minus your deductible...

Yes the person who damaged the camera in the first place needs to cover the cost of repair or replacement... if they had insurance when they rented the camra... but I'm pretty sure my insurance company is going to ask for proof of some kind that the camera isn't repaired and put back onto the shelf...
Click to expand...

The OP said that the insurance he paid extra for specifically did not cover water damage. That insurance wasn't HIS insurance, it was the rental company's insurance. If the camera had been damaged in some way that was covered, the insurance would have paid the rental company, and they would have the camera to send them to prove the severity of the damage.

As it stands, no insurance covered this damage, so nobody needed to prove the damage to any insurance company.
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
I'll just raise an ethical question here. Just curious other opinions. Concerning the rental company...they will most likely claim this on their insurance. Odds are...they have really good insurance and plan on getting reimbursed through them...and the client. Effectively they would be paid twice and could buy another camera....and rent that as well.

This is definitely not the proper or ethical thing to do. Does the customer have any protection against such an act? Whats your take?
Click to expand...

Although anything is possible, I highly doubt the rental company has damage insurance for equipment damaged while in the possession of a renter. That's why they offer waivers like the one the OP paid for.

Suppose the OP had not paid extra for the waiver, and the camera had been damaged beyond repair by something that would have been covered if he had gotten the waiver. What would happen? The OP would have to pay the full replacement cost of the camera, and rightfully so.

Now take that same scenario, but say the OP did pay extra for the waiver, and the camera was damaged beyond repair by something covered by the waiver. Where does the rental company get the money to replace the camera then? I would guess from a pool of money funded by all those waivers people paid for but never had to use, which is likely most of their customers. In a sense, it's the company's self-insurance program.

Bottom line is that in neither scenario is the rental company's insurance policy involved. I would expect their policy only covers the equipment when it is in the rental company's possession. When it is rented out, it's up to the rental company, by means of the terms of their rental contract, to provide for replacement costs in the event that the gear is damaged.

Just my theory.
 
Just to clarify, the damage waiver is indeed from the company itself so no third party insurance company involved.
 
Last edited:
David W. Richardson said:
But 'back in the day', cameras were largely mechanical. It's the digital age, and I don't know if that same advice would work on today's cameras.
Click to expand...

BS. There were still plenty of circuit boards and electronics in them. I'd actually argue that today's "digital age" cameras are tougher and more reliable, and there was more to go wrong on a "mechanical" camera. Never had a head clog or humidity lock-up on my P2 Vari, but I can tell you I had them on my Betacams.
 
Run&Gun said:
BS. There were still plenty of circuit boards and electronics in them. I'd actually argue that today's "digital age" cameras are tougher and more reliable, and there was more to go wrong on a "mechanical" camera. Never had a head clog or humidity lock-up on my P2 Vari, but I can tell you I had them on my Betacams.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But electronics are what get the worst damage when water gets into it, especially salt water. Even 'back in the day', it was the electronic boards that got the most damage from a camera getting wet. So it's only natural that cameras today, which are essentially ALL electronic, would suffer worse when soaked.

If the unit is powered on at the time, things can fry in the blink of an eye. Even electronic components that appear to be operational after being dried out may have been weakened by the water damage, only to fail days, weeks or even months later.

Electronic components like transistors, resistors and capacitors are very sensitive to electrical spikes, the kind of which can happen when water gets inside a powered-on -- or even powered-off -- camera. Those spikes may weaken the components, and yet not cause them to completely fail right away. You think everything is okay, but in the coming days, weeks or months your camera starts acting erratically and having problems. Because so much time has passed, you may not realize that the problems are connected to the earlier water damage.

In my days as a computer hardware repair technician working for one of the biggest tech companies in the world, I can't tell you the number of times I've dealt with people who had done their own repair or upgrade work, but hadn't bothered to take any precautions to avoid static -- no mat, no grounding strap. They'd always say, "I've never used any of that stuff, and never had a problem." Yet within weeks of their home-grown repair, they were having hardware problems. The reason we were trained to ALWAYS use static protection was because even the tiniest static spark can weaken the more sensitive electronic components, causing them to fail ("mysteriously") at a later time.
 
David W. Richardson said:
Actually, what you said was "...told them anything I have to replace will go in the back of my truck..." That sounds to me like "If I don't get the damaged gear, then I'm not paying for it." If that's not what you meant, then my apologies.
Click to expand...

How about it this way if I broke it I'll pay for it or the repair. But if I didn't break it then I want proof its broken.

Again this rental house which I learned later does this to everyone who comes in from out of town. Gives a low bid for a grip truck & lighting package ... then tries to make it up by over charging for damages that where not there... so when I called them out on it and told them anything I have to replace full price goes in the back of my truck...

Suddenly the bill dropped to 10% of the original damage list which included the silk that was torn which I told the rental manager about as soon as I got out of his truck upon its return. Just like I won't rent from another place in LA who does the same thing.

In this case we know the camera got damaged... but its like taking your car to the mechanic he hands you back the parts so you know the work was done...
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
How about it this way if I broke it I'll pay for it or the repair. But if I didn't break it then I want proof its broken.
Click to expand...

I think we're basically on the same page here. The OP apparently knew the camera was broken before he returned it to the rental house.

It sounds like the rental house you used was definitely shady.

As for the mechanic analogy -- I don't know about you, but I would have no way of knowing for sure if the parts he handed me actually did come off of my car.

But again, it's all about working with a company that is trustworthy, whether it's car repairs or gear rentals.
 
We should probably also keep in mind that repairing a severely damaged camera can cost a good deal more than replacing that camera with a new one. So even if the camera was technically repairable, it might be smarter -- and cheaper -- to replace it.
 
David W. Richardson said:
We should probably also keep in mind that repairing a severely damaged camera can cost a good deal more than replacing that camera with a new one. So even if the camera was technically repairable, it might be smarter -- and cheaper -- to replace it.
Click to expand...


Probably more now, than ever, with the seeminglydisposable nature of almost everything electronic now. A friend had his 2700 trashed during football season when his tripod leg collapsed and his camera went nose down into 'the frozen tundra'. Drove the lens through the optical block. He was able to get another 2700(used) off off eBay for the same price as his insurance deductible and MUCH less than the repair would have cost(even if it had been feasible/possible to do so).
 
David W. Richardson said:
The OP apparently knew the camera was broken before he returned it to the rental house.
Click to expand...
Yeah I told them about a week before the camera was due back that the water might have damaged it. The situation was bad enough for both sides as is. I was thinking that in case someone was in line waiting for the camera, it would be good to warn them immediately. This would either get the rental company to get a new LX100 right away or if not, anyone who could be waiting in line for it would have had time to rent another camera such as the GH4. At least it seams like they might have decided to buy another one right away or they probably already had another LX100 in stock. I say that because right after the incident happen, I decided to one day check online and saw that the LX100 appeared to be in stock to rent.
 
Here's a video that was posted on FaceBook recently that shows the water coming in to the exact same location I was at in January when I got hit. I'm assuming the person must have shot that video this month in October so it's not on the same date. It would have been good if someone have shot footage of me getting hit and trying to escape. Watching this video really makes me speechless knowing that things could have been worse for me.

https://www.facebook.com/hugo.freire.3910/videos/1627322457522634
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top