The weather sealing fantasy

[Nikon Bob]

But sealed lenses and camera body seem like a good idea to me. The only disadvantage I see is cost. Do I need it? Mostly not. Might it occasionally save my equipment from water damage? Yes. Is it worth having? Probably. What else is there to say? My guess is a lot. Will it be worth hearing? We'll see....

+1 on that from me.

Bob

 

[Ben Z]

To answer Roger's original question, for the last going on 20 years I live in what's considered a tropical climate, a few miles from the ocean. It rains frequently and hard around here, and even when the sun is out it's always humid and there is always salt in the air. I have not yet had any camera problems due to lack of weather sealing.

In principle I agree that for $7000 a few gaskets and grommets doesn't seem like asking too much. But to do more than just give a false sense of security, they would need to also seal the lens mount. They could redesign the body flange with an O-ring, and institute a program to replace lens flanges with new ones engineered with a groove and O-ring, but I don't know how they could do either and still maintain the 6-bit coding.

Recently I met up with Brian Bower in Germany, and there happened to be a light but fairly steady rain outside. I asked him if he could be candid about just how protective I ought to be with my new M9, and he replied that it rains a lot worse in England and in 4 years of heavy use with 2 M8's and now 2M9's he's never had a problem.

For myself, I'm not a huge fan of being outside in the rain (don't like being soaked, and Florida is notorious for lightning striking people dead) so there are times when I'm happy to use the camera as a scapegoat for why I had to get in out of the rain

 

[skibeerr]

When I handled (and stood on!) the latest weather-sealed Olympus DSLR at photokina, I thought, "Wow, this is really great, I wouldn't ever have to worry about where I used it." Then the fantasy wore off and I thought, "Actually, how badly do I need this? Not very!" And I travel more than most -- though not, of course, as much as many full-time professional phtojournalists. We all have fantasies. Some of us are better at recognizing them than others.


Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger,

look at my avatar, I kayak on the sea a lot and had one camera ruined by salt water spray. I would like a good weather sealed camera so I can shoot from my cockpit in moderate waves or stand in the sea to get a good perspective.

[/url]
P8301397 by wim_b, on Flickr[/IMG]

This was the shot I was taking on my avatar.


cheers,
Wim

 

[JayGannon]

In conditions like that your going to need a pro level sealed body, be in SLR or whatever else.

 

[Jamie123]

Well not exactly. I value my life more than my camera (although sometimes I think they are the same).

Well like every analogy it only works up to a certain point.

But the point is for most people weathersealing is a safety net 'just in case'. Just like with an airbag the fact that most people will never actually use it doesn't mean it's not good to have.

Somehow I get the feeling, though, that Roger's Land Rover does not have an airbag

 

[Sonnar Brian]

A simple plastic bag with an optical port on it can be bought, or made. Ritz camera used to sell one with a Latex glove built in for operating the camera. I remember them at ~$50 or so. There are a lot of ways to keep the climate from affecting a camera and still shoot. So- salt spray, dust storms, mud storms, etc- some easy ways of weatherproofing exist, if anyone wanted additional measures over what the camera provides.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I envy those of you who live in areas where you have certainty that is is or is not going to rain while you are out photographing. I live in FL. If I only photographed when I knew there was no chance of rain, I could only photograph about 60 days each year. Our rain probability is almost never less than 10%, almost never more than 70%.

Roger: No, I have never had a camera destroyed by rain. Yes, I have had several repairs due to moisture.

Yes, a more robust weather seal on a RF would be a selling point for me. No, it would not cause me to replace the working cameras I have.

In the meantime, I will just carry a large ziplok plastic bag in my pocket so I can put my camera in it when there is a heavy downpour. And know that carrying the camera in my hand all day during the summer continues to work in minute amounts of sweat.

 

[Ronald M]

I read about someone who took his M8 to Iceland. Fellow travelers with unsealed lessor camera were still shooting and the M8 died. Cost of repair was too high to do.

Basicly when electronics get wet, they can be dried or replaced but there is frequently hidden damage that does not show until later. This makes repair warrantee a problem so most companies will not touch it including Leica.

 

[charjohncarter]

Stay with film in wet, humid places. I have a NikonosII and a Canon AS-6 for the wet stuff. This is the lowly AS-6:

Although not that hot underwater, but it does have a flash:

 

[alistair.o]

Last Saturday I was covering a demonstration against the spending cuts in the UK. It was grey and overcast at dawn and so I took a Nikon F3 and used a Nikkor 35mm F2 & 105mm F2.5, all housed in a Domke F2 bag.

As it all got underway the heavens opened and I found myself sheltering in a doorway until the main speaker arrived. Also in the doorway was a reuters agency photographer with two digital bodies and long lenses and a reporter & camera man from the local TV station. At that point we were 'damp', but when it all got going and we were all busy, we and our gear were soaked. The F3 shook it off (I literally had to keep shaking the rain off it) I didn't see too much of the others after that except when we crossed in the crowd after pictures - what a sorry sight we must have looked.

As for my gear, when I got back, I wiped it down, then broke it down into component parts and put it in the boiler room along with mini silica gel bags in the body cavities. I took it out 24 hrs later - not one sign of damp and or any ill effects

Regards

Al

PS The Domke was surprisingly dry also (resilient material)

 

[Bob Ross]

When I handled (and stood on!) the latest weather-sealed Olympus DSLR at photokina, I thought, "Wow, this is really great, I wouldn't ever have to worry about where I used it." Then the fantasy wore off and I thought, "Actually, how badly do I need this? Not very!" And I travel more than most -- though not, of course, as much as many full-time professional phtojournalists. We all have fantasies. Some of us are better at recognizing them than others.

Cheers,

R.

I have used the Oly E-1 (& E-3) and the weatherproof lenses since Oct 2003 and have only done shooting in heavy rain a half a dozen times. No problems, of course.....and no worthwhile pictures either......:bang:
All the stuff about weatherproof bodies usually misses the importance of weatherproof lenses..........having my favorite cron filling up with acid rain while my new M9W is shedding a shower is not a pleasant thought.
Bob

 

[ederek]

I was caught in a bit of rain this evening walking to the train terminal. As I tucked the camera under my cotton overcoat and shielded it with my arm, I did wish it was weather sealed. Ahhhh fantasies fantasies fantasies.

 

[Nikkor AIS]

I often shoot in less-than-ideal weather conditions. Last winter, I froze my Leica M3 almost every day, and my fingers along with it . The same for my D3 X2. And the Leica M7 near the end of the winter.

When it's really wet, like snow that melts, I use plastic bags and I even bought a Sport Shield. Not cheap but very cool.
Last winter I was in some of the worst snowstorms of my life and I was glad to have the Sport Shield.

I'm sure soaking a Nikkor 300 2.0 IF-ED AIS wouldn't do it much harm but I really don't see the point if I can help it.

I'm thinking of getting a couple for the MP/ M7 this winter as I'm going to be shooting while skiing with the Leica M. And they're going to get sprayed as I'm going to be using the 12 mm ASPH up close and personal.

And as a bonus, they put a layer between your skin and the metal which is very nice if - like me - you like to shoot with bare hands.

For me, fogging up is by far a bigger problem ... going out into the cold, back into a warm car, then out into the cold, then back again.
Bagging is the only option or keeping the car cold.

Which is not going to happen. I only come in to change locations and warm up . It gets cold here.

When I finally do come in from the cold, I plastic bag all my gear. It's a pain in the ass, but I do it.

Sorry, my examples are not as sexy as Frank's unless you're a cow. Then this bull might be pretty sexy .













Nikkor 300 2.0 IF-ED AIS on D3 with Sport Shield hand held.

I don't think getting most cameras a little wet now and again is bad. It's if you're doing it every day, like I intend to, that you could run into problems.

 

[ederek]

There have been greater fantasies than the "weather sealing fantasy". Witness The Fantasy of Flight..

Still trying to figure out why "dust storms" aren't "weather events"..

 

[zerobuttons]

.....
For most people, 'weather sealing' is a fantasy.
.....

In my experience, not so fantasy-like after all. Shooting at a racing track with a Nikon D200, I got caught in a drench in the far end of the track from the pit. I decided to let it be the test of camera´s weather sealings (and the lense´s). In between the worst showers, drivers actually came out from the pit. Here´s one shot from that day:


Another shooter with a Canon with a push-pull zoom as his only lens, ran for cover, since the push-pull would work like a water pump in those conditions

 

[atlcruiser]

Quite. As you might guess, no, I don't. Yes, I ford rivers occasionally (there's supposed to be a piece scheduled in a couple of months in Land Rover World called 'Fords and Land Rovers'). But to need a snorkel, you've got to be doing something pretty extreme -- the Land Rover equivalent of photographing helicopers landing in a desert, from close up.

Cheers,

R.

A bit off topic here..... the main use for the snorkel is to get the air intake high. High air is generally cooler and cleaner so the motor is much more efficient
I have a snorkel on my cruiser and have had use of it more than once

 

[LKeithR]

There are solutions...

There are solutions...

Weather sealing? Who needs it?

A friend of mine on the waterfront in Fort Langley on a cold, rainy June day. All Pentax gear; some weather-sealed, some not, but mostly borrowed--he works in a camera store--which explains the 'extra" protection.

I have a Pentax K20D which I happily shoot in the pouring rain--with a weather-sealed lens, of course. We get lots of the wet stuff here in the Lower Mainland of B.C. so I find weather-sealing to be a big plus. In answer to the specific question; have I ever had a camera falter because of rain? No, but in the past I've shot mainly manual cameras and have been more careful. Weather-sealing allows me to "let it all hang out", so to speak...

 

[Roger Hicks]

A bit off topic here..... the main use for the snorkel is to get the air intake high. High air is generally cooler and cleaner so the motor is much more efficient
I have a snorkel on my cruiser and have had use of it more than once

Cleaner, quite possibly, but that's what air cleaners are for. Cooler... not so sure. Try it: hold a thermometer at normal air intake height and at snorkel height, and see if 3 feet makes a lot of difference.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. In answer to the specific question; have I ever had a camera falter because of rain? No, but in the past I've shot mainly manual cameras and have been more careful. Weather-sealing allows me to "let it all hang out", so to speak...

Dear Keith,

That's my point, really. How much of it is really necessary, and hw much of it is the 21st century 'climate of fear' (as with terrorism, paedophilia, etc.)?

I'm not saying that weather sealing is never necessary. Nor am I denying that weather sealing can provide a feeing of security or reassurance. I'm just questioning how many people really need it, and how often.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ronald M]

Well Roger, people have had digi M made economically unrepairable with very little water if read some past posts.

The reason is unseen water damage that shows up later under repair warrantee. It is a fact.