Steve'sDigicams

Blueberry · Nov 3, 2009, 10:02 PM

Many have said this is how the company's rake in the money...that it's not worth getting....that if you are going to have a problem, most likely it will be within the first year of owning the camera.

There are many things that could go wrong with a SLR camera. I am thinking about dropping the $100 or so to extend it for another 2 years. Do you agree with this philosophy?

kazuya · Nov 4, 2009, 1:41 AM

i dont normaly take it, but when i bought my nikon d90 i was offered 5yrs accidental damage for £60, so i took it. the regular price was £170, which i wouldnt have taken, thats like a thired of the camera price.
i think it depends a lot on the camera cost, the cover cost and the length of cover.
the peace of mind is good though

JohnG · Nov 4, 2009, 8:36 AM

I think the answer depends on what the plan covers. Kazuya references a policy that protects against damage. That's not a bad thing to have - although I simply cary a Personal Aricles policy at State Farm - so I'm covered for damage, theft, etc. If it's just a policy covering against the standard failure of the device as opposed to damage or theft then absoultely it's a money-maker for the company. But, everyone is different. If it gives you peace of mind to have the policy and the money is no object then it may be worth the investment simply for that peace of mind

Blueberry · Nov 4, 2009, 9:12 AM

Thanks for your replies. I found something interesting; I was able to obtain a extended 2 year coverage on my camera for less money at Nikon's web site compared to getting it at the store where I purchased the D5000. It makes sense since the store gets some money in their pockets when a customer gets a extended warranty. It was under $100 for the extended war. so I went for it.

By the way your homeowners insurance does not cover your camera if it malfunctions. It only covers it for theft, fire, or things like water damage from a broken pipe. You can add the personal article coverage which will extend coverage to almost anything like dropping it on accident, but I believe mechanical breakdown is still not covered.

Nov 3, 2009, 10:02 PM	#1
Blueberry Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: PA Posts: 109	Should I pay for the extended service plan? Many have said this is how the company's rake in the money...that it's not worth getting....that if you are going to have a problem, most likely it will be within the first year of owning the camera. There are many things that could go wrong with a SLR camera. I am thinking about dropping the $100 or so to extend it for another 2 years. Do you agree with this philosophy?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Nov 4, 2009, 1:41 AM	#2
kazuya Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 460	i dont normaly take it, but when i bought my nikon d90 i was offered 5yrs accidental damage for £60, so i took it. the regular price was £170, which i wouldnt have taken, thats like a thired of the camera price. i think it depends a lot on the camera cost, the cover cost and the length of cover. the peace of mind is good though

Nov 4, 2009, 8:36 AM	#3
JohnG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 6,372	I think the answer depends on what the plan covers. Kazuya references a policy that protects against damage. That's not a bad thing to have - although I simply cary a Personal Aricles policy at State Farm - so I'm covered for damage, theft, etc. If it's just a policy covering against the standard failure of the device as opposed to damage or theft then absoultely it's a money-maker for the company. But, everyone is different. If it gives you peace of mind to have the policy and the money is no object then it may be worth the investment simply for that peace of mind

Nov 4, 2009, 9:12 AM	#4
Blueberry Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: PA Posts: 109	Thanks for your replies. I found something interesting; I was able to obtain a extended 2 year coverage on my camera for less money at Nikon's web site compared to getting it at the store where I purchased the D5000. It makes sense since the store gets some money in their pockets when a customer gets a extended warranty. It was under $100 for the extended war. so I went for it. By the way your homeowners insurance does not cover your camera if it malfunctions. It only covers it for theft, fire, or things like water damage from a broken pipe. You can add the personal article coverage which will extend coverage to almost anything like dropping it on accident, but I believe mechanical breakdown is still not covered.