The weather sealing fantasy

I'm going to Borneo next week and weather conditions are a single deciding factor for me to bring my D700 instead of an RF or something else. Humidity and proximity to monsoon season mean I'm much more confident shooting digital first of all because the camera is built for more extreme conditions and second of all because I can get instant feedback and know nothing inside is screwing up like film getting condensation or whatever freaky stuff can happen to camera/film/lenses in such humidity.
 
I have a weather sealed Olympus E3 and weather sealed lenses and when you realise its possible to stand outside for a full day in torrential rain and not have it fog up, and keep shooting, weather sealing becomes worth its weight in gold.

With my M9 on the other hand its a balancing act. It will get water in it so how long can I balance the expected life before it fogs up with knowing other things need photographing later on in the day. I'm not saying an M9 or the next M10 should be weather sealed, but having an alternative waterproof camera should be a priority for anybody who wants to enjoy a bit of British weather. Nowadays we have an amazing range of outdoor clothing available to keep us out in all weathers and all times of year, but very few fully featured cameras that can compete with a Gortex anorak.

Steve
 
I have shot in bad weather; I wanted photos and it was raining, so I had no choice. I always tried to protect the camera and lens. Sometimes that was with plastic bags, sometimes with an umbrella, others with clothing to cover it when not in use, and a big brimmed hat when at my eyes. I have never dunked my camera or intentionally exposed it to more moisture than I had too. So far that has been enough.

That said, I would probably choose not to shoot over damaging one of my cameras. I am not a pro that must get the photo or lose work.
 
I've used my ZI in the rain, was careful and it was fine. I've also used it on a lovely day, but it got splashed with sea water, so off to Zeiss it went with a power switch which was very stiff and made a slight grinding noise when it moved.

It's all much better now, ZI fixed free of charge, but weather sealing would likely have prevented the problem I think. I don't worry about it though, I'll just be more careful.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Or am I wrong?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

IMHO opinion you are wrong. Weather sealing is one of those "objectively good things" in life. Lack of weather sealing have made me not use my Leicas (and other cameras) outside more than once. For all I know, they may have been perfectly OK, but I'm not interested in becoming the guinea pig :D
 
I used an Olympus OM2n, Leica M6 and Nikon D100 for six months in Iraq with no real problems (one of my CF cards for the D100 would occasionally cease to function when it got really hot); and I used an Olympus OM4 for more than a year in Belize with no problem at all. Having said that, I'm reasonably careful with my cameras: in Iraq, I avoided taking them out in dust-storms, not least because there wasn't much to photograph. Nowadays, if going out in really adverse conditions, I take my Nikonoses or my little Fuji waterproof digital P&S. Really, cameras are just the same as any other mechanical implement: if you take care of them they'll work, if you don't, they won't.
 
Roger Hicks said:
EDIT: As emilsand says, weather sealing is an 'objectively good thing', but (a) so are small, light cameras deliverig high-quality images and (b) that wasn't actually the question, which was, how many people have actually had their cameras damaged by rain?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I think weathersealing in a camera is like an airbag in a car. It's good to have in case something happens but most people will hardly ever be in a situation where they need it.
 
I really, really do not understand the point of this thread... can you please summarise it in one sentence? They should stop weather sealing cameras? We should buy non-sealed cameras only? What is your point?
 
My Nikon D300 has also gracefully survived an extended shoot in heavy northern European Rain without any problems. *knocking on wood*

For other cameras, however, some protection could be beneficial, e.g. using rain/underwater covers by German manufacturer EWA-Marine (I'm not affiliated with them - but I've heard positive reports from other users about these products). These covers are not made for serious diving, but offer protection against rainstorms or heavy condensation under abrupt temperature changes.

EDIT: Roger was faster...
 
Last edited:
"Weather-sealing fantasy"? Don't think so! I'd like the worry about shooting in adverse conditions to be removed: weather sealing would help in dusty environments as well as wet ones (as pointed in the Irag post earlier).

I'd be happy with "shower-proof" - full weather sealing would be impossible on the digital M without a major redesign (and the lenses aren't waterproof, so fully waterproofing the camera would be somewhat redundant...)

I like travelling to interesting places like deserts and mountains, which can be harsh on equipment - and it's be nice to take my M8. In fact, I did take my M8 up Mt Etna: it was windy and abrasive volcanic ash was being blown around - I used tape and Blu Tack to seal any points of ingress on my M8, and was glad I did. I tested Match Technical Thumb's Up on that trip (http://matchtechnical.com/CustomersCameras.aspx), and part of my review's below.

The camera survived fine, but it would have been more convenient not to have had to use tape and Blu Tack. (My tripod, sadly, will never be the same!)

So, yes, I for one would like better weather sealing. And it's doable without too much effort if it's at a basic level (i.e. not absolute waterproofing), just a few seals here and there and minor design tweaks that wouldn't affect the form factor/size. I'm sure Leica could do it if they had the will...

"... I was using my camera under particularly harsh conditions, and it was subjected to several days of wind-blown, abrasive volcanic ash. By the end of my trip, the black chrome on my Leica was scuffed, and the tough paint had worn through on the edges of Thumbs Up to show the underlying brass – which actually looks attractive in its own way (Figure 3). I’m sure that in normal use the paint on Thumbs Up would prove more durable."

thumbs_04.jpg

My Leica M8 looking less than pristine after being scoured by volcanic ash.

thumbs_05.jpg

Steam and sulphur dioxide on the summit of Mount Etna."​
 
Roger Hicks said:
weather sealing is an 'objectively good thing', but (a) so are small, light cameras deliverig high-quality images
Click to expand...

There's nothing preventing manufacturers from building small, light, high-quality cameras with weather sealing (Pentax K7, the Olympuses) - it's just that some high-quality manufacturers choose not to do it.

Is this thread directed at the, in your opinion, too many people who complain about something they don't really need?
 
Roger Hicks said:
To suggest that weather-sealing is a sine qua non of professional cameras is indefensible on two grounds. First, it is essential only for certain kinds of cameras, used for certain kinds of reportage, and second, weather sealing is a relatively recent innovation, before which there were plenty of non-weather-sealed cameras, and plenty of careful photographers.
Click to expand...

Yes, there were lots of careful photographers, but also there were lots of cameras that didn't have the same level of circuitry inside. My Leica film cameras have all been on the radiator drying out at some time or other, but water evapourating out of a film camera with a few grease covered gears isn't the same as water evapourating onto circuits. Water trickling into the film winder would never have stopped my Nikon F, but water trickling onto the film winding part of the circuit might bother a modern Canon 1000D. You just aren't comparing the same things, just as keeping an older Land Rover going needs a hair grip and a bit of string, now you need a PC to diagnose a Discovery's problems. The world moves on.

Steve
 
rxmd said:
There's nothing preventing manufacturers from building small, light, high-quality cameras with weather sealing (Pentax K7, the Olympuses) - it's just that some high-quality manufacturers choose not to do it.

Is this thread directed at the, in your opinion, too many people who complain about something they don't really need?
Click to expand...

That's overstating it a bit, but close to the question. I was (and am) genuinely interested in whether people have had many problems with so-called non-weather-sealed cameras. Ade-oh's response about Iraq, and RichC's story about Mt. Etna, to say nothing of Brian's story about the water-fight, suggest to me that even a 'non-weather-sealed' camera can, with a little care, intelligence and foresight be used in surprisingly harsh conditions.

It's the refusal to exercise care, intelligence and foresight that I regard as the macho fantasy. In the late 80s or early 90s, when I lived in Guadalupe, California, I saw a young reporter wandering around at the Passion Play wih no lens on his Nikon. Guadalupe is pretty dusty. When I asked if he wasn't worried about dust getting inside the body, he chewed his gum with elaborate nonchalance and said, "Nah, Nikons are tough" -- with the implication, of course, "And so am I. I'm a hard-bitten reporter, and not, contrary to appearances, a stupid kid." In other words, sure, weather sealing is a good thing. But so is intelligence.

Fifteen or twenty years ago, a major US camera importer told me, "You can sell cameras using the fear factor. Say to someone who is perfectly happy with his camera, 'Yes, but can it do this?' (which the camera you're selling can, and the one he is using or considering can't), and regardless of what 'this' is, even if he's never thought of doing it or needing it before, you've planted the seeds of doubt in his mind." Weather sealing is, I suspect, for most people, the fear factor in action. So I was trying to gather some evidence on one side or the other.

Let's face it. Technically, photography ain't that difficult, and composition is something you learn with practice. Wherever possible, I'll try to help someone with technical issues, because we all have to learn sometime. But I'm increasingly interested in how and why people take pictures, and even with what cameras they choose and why, which explains threads like this.

EDIT: Steve's point is well taken, but again, I wonder how much actual evidence there is of electronic cameras being less reliable.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
I think most cameras are more rugged and reliable than many owners believe. Certainly do not need to be pampered to maintain operation. I've seen an M8 that had been through the war in Iraq and the worst of it was the thumbwheel was jittery. It was used in dust storms, no special care taken.

Impact damage is probably worse for most cameras than some rain or dust. That does not mean to go around in a dust storm with the lens off.
 
Roger Hicks said:
To suggest that weather-sealing is a sine qua non of professional cameras is indefensible on two grounds. First, it is essential only for certain kinds of cameras, used for certain kinds of reportage, and second, weather sealing is a relatively recent innovation, before which there were plenty of non-weather-sealed cameras, and plenty of careful photographers. Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

That may have held true in the days of film cameras, but digital has has changed the rules considerably.

Obviously we are not talking about a 4x5, but DSLR and RF bodies.

As we all know most mechanical cameras can survive a good soaking and function without much trouble after they dry out. Obviously a CLA is recommended in severe cases.

Digital or is a whole different story.

The worst case scenario is that the camera shorts out and fries itself.
Letting it dry out overnight is obviously not going to bring it back to life.

Maybe you get lucky and the electronics are not immediately damaged by contact with water. But now you face the threat of corrosion. Unless you drop it in a bucket of distilled water, traces of salt and other minerals may be left behind on the internal components, once it evaporates. Over time this can lead to the corrosion of electronics and their failure.

I suppose you could look at this in monetary terms.


Is it the end of the world if you fry your $500 LX-5?
Probably not, but unfortunate.

How about a $7000 M9?
I guess it depends on how many digits your bank balance contains.

But regardless of how much money you have a pro camera should not be at the whims of a downpour etc.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
That's overstating it a bit, but close to the question. I was (and am) genuinely interested in whether people have had many problems with so-called non-weather-sealed cameras. Ade-oh's response about Iraq, and RichC's story about Mt. Etna, to say nothing of Brian's story about the water-fight, suggest to me that even a 'non-weather-sealed' camera can, with a little care, intelligence and foresight be used in surprisingly harsh conditions.

It's the refusal to exercise care, intelligence and foresight that I regard as the macho fantasy. In the late 80s or early 90s, when I lived in Guadalupe, California, I saw a young reporter wandering around at the Passion Play wih no lens on his Nikon. Guadalupe is pretty dusty. When I asked if he wasn't worried about dust getting inside the body, he chewed his gum with elaborate nonchalance and said, "Nah, Nikons are tough" -- with the implication, of course, "And so am I. I'm a hard-bitten reporter, and not, contrary to appearances, a stupid kid." In other words, sure, weather sealing is a good thing. But so is intelligence.

Fifteen or twenty years ago, a major US camera importer told me, "You can sell cameras using the fear factor. Say to someone who is perfectly happy with his camera, 'Yes, but can it do this?' (which the camera you're selling can, and the one he is using or considering can't), and regardless of what 'this' is, even if he's never thought of doing it or needing it before, you've planted the seeds of doubt in his mind." Weather sealing is, I suspect, for most people, the fear factor in action. So I was trying to gather some evidence on one side or the other.

Let's face it. Technically, photography ain't that difficult, and composition is something you learn with practice. Wherever possible, I'll try to help someone with technical issues, because we all have to learn sometime. But I'm increasingly interested in how and why people take pictures, and even with what cameras they choose and why, which explains threads like this.

EDIT: Steve's point is well taken, but again, I wonder how much actual evidence there is of electronic cameras being less reliable.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


Ah, now I get your point. Yes, there are quite a few people who have this ''macho'' attitude towards their gear. They think not taking care of their equipment show's that they're serious about photography and it makes them feel like they're tough war photographers.
Personally, I take care of my equipment as much as I can. I might want or have to sell something down the line and the better it looks the more I can get for it. Of course I would never compromise the integrity of my work when I'm on a job just to pamper my gear but, as I usually work in very friendly environments, that's hardly ever a concern.

Now as for weathersealing, I do think that it's a reasonable concern with electronic devices. Corrosion occurs much faster than you'd think. Often the device continues working but in time it adds up.
Let's take mobile phones as an example. A while back I saw a news segment about how Apple in my country refused to repair iPhones under warranty due to water damage even though they were fully functional had been sent in for other reasons like a loose button on the side. Apparently almost every mobile phone that has ever been used outside on a rainy day (even if it didn't get wet) has minor corrosion inside due to humidity. Most people get a new mobile phone every two years so it probably never gets to a point where it's a problem but cameras are a different matter as we'd all like them to last for a long time.
 
Harry Lime said:
Digital is a whole different story.

The worst case scenario is that the camera shorts out and fries itself.
Letting it dry out overnight is obviously not going to bring it back to life.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm asking: have we, in fact, much evidence that this is true? Or is it the 'fear factor'?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Harry Lime said:
The worst case scenario is that the camera shorts out and fries itself.
Letting it dry out overnight is obviously not going to bring it back to life.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm asking: have we, in fact, much evidence that this is true? Or is it the 'fear factor'?
Click to expand...

What, that soaked electronics may be beyond recovery? This is definitely not the fear factor. I've lost a Leica digital compact and several other pieces of electronics that way over the years.

Often it's not really frying itself as much as having conductive residues in the water that are left after drying, leaving conductive paths on the circuit boards in places where they shouldn't be. Sometimes I got things back to work by cleaning them using alcohol etc., but not always.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom