Weather Sealing for EOS cameras

[dilbert]

Before the digital era, the top of the line film EOS camera was the EOS 1v. It was UAS$1899.
With the battery pack booster, the pricing was around $3000.

The EOS 1v was marketted as being waterproof.

The EOS 1v was released just over 11 years ago, in February 2000.

In 1998, Canon brought out the EOS 3 in 1998, for around $1400. Today it is $1699.

If you allow for a 3% price rise per year since 1998, that would end up at around $2055 (EOS 3) and $2788 (EOS 1v). If you want to argue that time should mean that things are cheaper, then...

So quite clearly, weather sealing does not mean a camera needs to cost > $3000.

But another way to look at this is that the difference in a digital camera that shoots 6fps at 22MP (5D3) and a film SLR that shoots 10fps (1v) is $1800.

How much of the $1699 is electronics for film that can be ripped out?

If the cost of that was ~$200, then the "digital" part of the 5D Mark III is worth $2000 out of the $3499 price tag.

[neuroanatomist]

Before the digital era, the top of the line film EOS camera was the EOS 1v. It was UAS$1899.
With the battery pack booster, the pricing was around $3000.
The EOS 1v was marketted as being waterproof.
So quite clearly, weather sealing does not mean a camera needs to cost > $3000.

FWIW, the weather sealing of the 5DII and 50D is described by Canon as, "...almost the equal of the EOS-1N."  So, you're getting what you pay for.  The sealing of the 7D is better than that (as is the 5DIII, although that takes you over $3K).  Spending more than $4K gets you better sealing (among many other things). 

[unfocused]

Well no, weather sealing doesn't  have to cost more than $3,000.

http://www.pentaximaging.com/

[dilbert]

Before the digital era, the top of the line film EOS camera was the EOS 1v. It was UAS$1899.
With the battery pack booster, the pricing was around $3000.
The EOS 1v was marketted as being waterproof.
So quite clearly, weather sealing does not mean a camera needs to cost > $3000.

FWIW, the weather sealing of the 5DII and 50D is described by Canon as, "...almost the equal of the EOS-1N."  So, you're getting what you pay for.  The sealing of the 7D is better than that (as is the 5DIII, although that takes you over $3K).  Spending more than $4K gets you better sealing (among many other things).

In 1989, the EOS-1N was launched at $2300. In 2000, the EOS 1-V was launched at $1899 with better weather sealing than the EOS-1N.

[neuroanatomist]

In 1989, the EOS-1N was launched at $2300. In 2000, the EOS 1-V was launched at $1899 with better weather sealing than the EOS-1N.

The implication is that the EOS-1V is the pinnacle of weather sealing, that it can't be any better.  I doubt that's the case - rather, the current 1-series bodies have even better sealing.  FWIW, the 5D has no overt sealing, the 5DII has some, and it launched at a lower price than the 5D. 

I'm not sure that any of this is relevant, in any case.  As I've pointed out previously, the unit manufacturing cost of a dSLR is only a very tiny component in determining the selling price. 

[dilbert]

In 1989, the EOS-1N was launched at $2300. In 2000, the EOS 1-V was launched at $1899 with better weather sealing than the EOS-1N.

The implication is that the EOS-1V is the pinnacle of weather sealing, that it can't be any better.  I doubt that's the case - rather, the current 1-series bodies have even better sealing.

Can you back that claim up with anything concrete?
Or is this just a case of drinking too much Canon kool-aid?

I'm not sure that any of this is relevant, in any case.  As I've pointed out previously, the unit manufacturing cost of a dSLR is only a very tiny component in determining the selling price.

The point is to debunk the myth that weather sealing is something that should cost $1000s.

As Pentax have shown (and as analysis here suggests), weather sealing isn't really that expensive.

Rather it is the perception of the value of weather sealing that makes it expensive.

[neuroanatomist]

Can you back that claim up with anything concrete?
Or is this just a case of drinking too much Canon kool-aid?

The 1DsIII white paper indicates that environmental sealing is one of the improvements compared to the 1DsII.  Maybe you consider that Canon kool-aid, though.  Regardless, even if the 1DsII is no better than the EOS-1V, the current 1-series are better than that. 

The point is to debunk the myth that weather sealing is something that should cost $1000s.
As Pentax have shown (and as analysis here suggests), weather sealing isn't really that expensive.

A 1-gallon Ziploc® bag will provide a completely rainproof seal to even a Rebel camera for less than 10¢.   

Still not sure what the point is, here.  If it really is just to show that a weather-sealed camera doesn't need to cost $1000s, fine - I agree, and the Pentak K-30 is proof of that.  If you don't want to pay $1000s for a weather sealed camera, fine.  Get a Pentax K-30.  Or a P&S like the D20.  But if you want a fully-sealed Canon dSLR, you pay what Canon charges.  Or not.  If you find it unacceptable, vote with your wallet. 

[Halfrack]

Don't feed the troll.

You could have a water sealed body, but the moment you put a lens on, all bets are off.  Take a Pentax body and a third party lens out in the rain and see how it holds up.  Do we want better seals - yes.  Is Canon doing a better job of sealing their gear - yes.  Do I expect a lens that's been out for 10 years to have seals - no.  Would I rely on just the seals on the camera in the rain - NO!

Think Tank and others make protective gear, and it's a lot cheaper than a replacement body or lens due to water damage.

[awinphoto]

Don't feed the troll.

You could have a water sealed body, but the moment you put a lens on, all bets are off.  Take a Pentax body and a third party lens out in the rain and see how it holds up.  Do we want better seals - yes.  Is Canon doing a better job of sealing their gear - yes.  Do I expect a lens that's been out for 10 years to have seals - no.  Would I rely on just the seals on the camera in the rain - NO!

Think Tank and others make protective gear, and it's a lot cheaper than a replacement body or lens due to water damage.

Or even better yet, the 1d series are "weathersealed" yet try sending a 1d series back because of water damage...  All of a sudden the warranty is null.  I suspect pentax would be the same.  It's a nice feature but still use at your own risk. 

[briansquibb]

Can you back that claim up with anything concrete?
Or is this just a case of drinking too much Canon kool-aid?

The 1DsIII white paper indicates that environmental sealing is one of the improvements compared to the 1DsII.  Maybe you consider that Canon kool-aid, though.  Regardless, even if the 1DsII is no better than the EOS-1V, the current 1-series are better than that. 

The point is to debunk the myth that weather sealing is something that should cost $1000s.
As Pentax have shown (and as analysis here suggests), weather sealing isn't really that expensive.

A 1-gallon Ziploc® bag will provide a completely rainproof seal to even a Rebel camera for less than 10¢.   

Still not sure what the point is, here.  If it really is just to show that a weather-sealed camera doesn't need to cost $1000s, fine - I agree, and the Pentak K-30 is proof of that.  If you don't want to pay $1000s for a weather sealed camera, fine.  Get a Pentax K-30.  Or a P&S like the D20.  But if you want a fully-sealed Canon dSLR, you pay what Canon charges.  Or not.  If you find it unacceptable, vote with your wallet.

I regularly shoot in the rain with the 1D4/ds3 complete with sealed lens. Well they haven't stopped yet!!

Clearly Dilbert needs his cool-aid fix - here is the address www.nikonrumors.com

[dilbert]

Can you back that claim up with anything concrete?
Or is this just a case of drinking too much Canon kool-aid?

The 1DsIII white paper indicates that environmental sealing is one of the improvements compared to the 1DsII.  Maybe you consider that Canon kool-aid, though.  Regardless, even if the 1DsII is no better than the EOS-1V, the current 1-series are better than that. 

The point is to debunk the myth that weather sealing is something that should cost $1000s.
As Pentax have shown (and as analysis here suggests), weather sealing isn't really that expensive.

A 1-gallon Ziploc® bag will provide a completely rainproof seal to even a Rebel camera for less than 10¢.   

Still not sure what the point is, here.  If it really is just to show that a weather-sealed camera doesn't need to cost $1000s, fine - I agree, and the Pentak K-30 is proof of that.  If you don't want to pay $1000s for a weather sealed camera, fine.  Get a Pentax K-30.  Or a P&S like the D20.  But if you want a fully-sealed Canon dSLR, you pay what Canon charges.  Or not.  If you find it unacceptable, vote with your wallet.

I regularly shoot in the rain with the 1D4/ds3 complete with sealed lens. Well they haven't stopped yet!!

I'm not trying to say that they would stop.

What I'm trying to say is that the difference in price between a 1D4/1Ds3 that are weather sealed and not is perhaps not all that large (relatively speaking) for a camera in that price bracket.

Thus Canon deliver a "weather sealed camera" based on what they believe people want in a camera in the price bracket they're targeting rather than it being a feature that costs $2000 to deliver.

[neuroanatomist]

Thus Canon deliver a "weather sealed camera" based on what they believe people want in a camera in the price bracket they're targeting rather than it being a feature that costs $2000 to deliver.

Of course. But consider - to some extent, weather sealing is a by-product. Yes, the 1-series has gaskets and O-rings, but it's also built to tighter specified mechanical tolerances than lower cameras, and those tighter physical joins account for much of the sealing. It's why many users of 1-series bodies who pick up a 7D, despite it's commendable build quality, think it feels a bit like a toy.

[goretexguy]

For what it's worth to the argument, I once dropped my XSi into a creek. Complete, though brief, submersion. Both the lens (17-40L, with a filter on) and the camera ended up just fine. I did _immediately_ remove the main battery from the body and let it sit on a sunny rock for a couple hours. I've since shot at least 5K more images with my XSi without any issues.
Bottom line, I don't worry about mist, drizzle or spray from a waterfall when I'm shooting with my 5DII.

[dilbert]

Thus Canon deliver a "weather sealed camera" based on what they believe people want in a camera in the price bracket they're targeting rather than it being a feature that costs $2000 to deliver.

Of course. But consider - to some extent, weather sealing is a by-product. Yes, the 1-series has gaskets and O-rings, but it's also built to tighter specified mechanical tolerances than lower cameras, and those tighter physical joins account for much of the sealing. It's why many users of 1-series bodies who pick up a 7D, despite it's commendable build quality, think it feels a bit like a toy.

I wonder, if you handed a blind folded professional an EOS-1N or EOS-1V and they'd never held one before (had only used 1D series), would they dismiss them as a "toy"?

[bornshooter]

neuro you sir are the sheldon cooper of cameras you know everything hasn't canon offered you a job yet?and how in the hell aren't you a mod yet?