Take part in this week's poll.

 

What's so difficult about having a plain, simple 'No'?....

Can't imagine ever renting a camera out but I suppose there is an outside chance that I might hire one one day...

 

I must confess that, when I read about this in the current AP, I wondered what sort of numptie would even think about doing this. Maybe I was too harsh in my dismissal of the possibility.






Or maybe not,.

 

I agree

Very outside in my case

 

No. Simple no. Not because of any prejudice for or against renting. If I were a professional I'd do it if it made commercial sense. As an amateur I like to have my own cameras etc.

 

Borrowed, yes. Lent, yes. Hired lighting, yes. But never hired cameras or lenses. Never needed to. But it's quite common among some professionals.

Cheers,

R.

 

No, but when I was a kid I often borrowed my dad's camera, and when he became very old he borrowed my D200.

 

Never done either but I have frequently lent a camera to a granddaughter (she has a very good eye). Also I see little difference between hiring a camera or hiring a car.

 

I replied 'no', but on recollection, I remembered I had once hired a pair of Hasselblads with wide angle lenses, motor drives, flash guns and large capacity magazines. I designed a rigid cradle for all this kit and lowered it down a mine shaft, with a very long rat-tailed cable release. Took pics every two metres. Then, using a stereo comparator, I examined every pair of pictures, looking for side galleries. Most of the mines in the area had been surveyed conventionally, but this shaft was considered far too dangerous to go down. It was. When I was pulling the contraption back up the shaft, a loose rock came crashing down the shaft from 60 feet above me, badly bent the steel cage, and smashed one of the film magazines. Fortunately, the film survived, because the film had spooled off, and anyway, it was as black as a Welsh slate mine down there.

The reason for undertaking this peculiar... er... undertaking, was that for some reason the folks building the Dinorwic pumped storage scheme were terribly worried about their brand new shafts going anywhere near old mine shafts. Can't think why.

 

Hiring equipment from a specialist shop - yes, I'd consider that.

Hiring equipment from 'some bloke' or, even worse, hiring my own equipment out to 'some bloke' - no. Never.

Hiring out my own kit to somebody else may be covered by insurance, but we all know how much of a faff making an insurance claim can be. I know how I treat my own equipment and at least if I damage it whilst in use then it's all down to my own carelessness - and I can live with that. If some scrotey little Herbert hired my beloved D810 and damaged it in some way then there's a good chance that I'd waste precious photography time hunting him down and performing suitable abominations upon his body for having the temerity to damage mine.

By the same rule if I hire a piece of kit from a reputable hire company, then I know that they will have ensured its working condition and maintained it in a decent manner. What recompense would I have if I hired, say, a D5 body from some bloke on a website and then found that the sensor was so filthy to be unuseable? Worse still, what if this mystery website bloke then claimed that it wasn't that way when he shipped the camera to me?

No. I think that equipment hire is something best left to the few specialist outfits that do it professionally.

Cheers, Jeff

 

I know that's a common opinion but I've made half a dozen claims over the last 45 years and none of them were a problem. Maybe I'm just plain lucky.

 

I have once of twice loaned a lens to a friend or colleague at work. Obviously I had to trust them to be careful with it, and the arrangement was on the terms that they buy me a new one if they damage it. No fee was charged.

But all these people with so much equipment that they want to make some money from hiring it out ... what happens when HMRC start asking about the money after reading all about it in AP? If you are running a business, which must be the case if money is changing hands, surely there must be a tax liability.

Also, if their insurers have been told by the owner that the equipment is for personal use only (and hence not being hired out as part of a business - often insurers ask about this because businesses will have different terms applied), any claim made when the equipment is being used by its owner may be disallowed because it is not used only for personal use.

I suspect that any claim under the manufacturer's warranty may be refused it the equipment is being hired out.

If the equipment is hired out, does its owner need public liability insurance? (Imagine a nice heavy 500 mm F4 lens being dropped off a building...)

 

No. But I would probably rent a camera body and good tele lens if visiting somewhere for wildlife photography purposes (Isle of May for example) as my kit is not great for that type of shooting.

 

It is good idea to rent some lenses to try before You buy it.