who ALWAYS uses a filter when shooting

[Charles Papert]

Understood, but why exactly must insurance be out of the question? I've had my camera gear insured since before I was a "working professional"--my aged Nikon FE and lenses have been continuously insured since I bought them in the mid 80's when I was 20 (probably not worth it anymore--hmm). Might be time to look into an insurance policy. Sure, you are looking at at least a $500 deductible for a single claim, but that's a lot more attractive than losing your livelihood, as you put it. Some policies even provide for rental allotments if your gear is lost or damaged while on a project.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

I have insurance myself, but 90% of the indie folks I know do not. My comments were directed at them (i.e. if you're not going to insure, at least don't go without a UV filter).

And insurance is steep for indie and pretty restrictive. Though WEVA offers a pretty good deal.

[Ken Tanaka]

Perhaps this is really a matter of perception of relative risk. From our first days with a camera we are taught, or intuit, that the lens is the most delicate part of the camera and the most susceptible to damage. When you think back to where we learned this you may discover that it was from (ding, ding) a company that makes filters.

But in fact any number of hazards can put a camera out of business. I see moisture, dust, excess heat, tape transport failure, a bad case of the dropsies, et.al. all as far greater, and potentially equally expensive, hazards to my cameras as damage to my front lens elements. The truth is that under reasonable usage your lens hood (or matte box) offers the lens quite a bit of protection from lateral blows. Keeping the lens capped, or the matte box's flag down, between shots offers further protection.

[Jeff Donald]

The other factor is our choice of cameras. Charles, Ken and I shoot with XL1's. The removable lens makes a repair much more affordable. I've had front elements replaced on lenses before (no, I didn't scratch them, I bought them with scratches) and it's not that expensive. However, on cameras that have non removable lenses the whole lens assembly is usually replaced. Non removable lenses usually have a lot of plastic in the lens construction and it is impossible to disassemble the lens and replace the element and realign the lens assembly. The cost of the entire assembly is much more than just a front element.