Hydroscopic coatings

[iaind]

After watching the BBC program Miracles of Nature in which a treated mobile phone was dropped down a toilet and survived, can we urge Canon to consider weatherproofing bodies and lenses in the same way.
Consider shooting in a monsoon and not having to worry about water damage.

 

[Timothy_Bruce]

I think there is a lot that Canon could do!
That Cameras die of water damage because of corrosion is something that is in most cases avoidable with Hygroscopic coatings.
Getting a Camera that doesn't care about being dropped and fully submerged in water, I don´t think so.
There are too many mechanical parts that can not operate in such environments without huge defensives against the Water. Just think of the extreme fast moving shuttermechanism.

These Hygroscopic coatings work so well in mobile phones because there are virtually no moving parts.

 

[thebowtie]

After watching the BBC program Miracles of Nature in which a treated mobile phone was dropped down a toilet and survived, can we urge Canon to consider weatherproofing bodies and lenses in the same way.
Consider shooting in a monsoon and not having to worry about water damage.

A small, pedantic thing - not intended to de-rail this thread. Hydroscopic / Hygroscopic actually means 'water-absorbing'. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hygroscopic

What we want is 'Hydrophilic' - water-repelling.

Regardless of dictionary definitions, water-profing requires more than a water-repellent coating.

It also requires careful engineering so that all potential points of water ingress (think buttons, switches, displays, battery-compartment, CF-card case, electronic interface points (HDMI, USB, N3, X-Sync, etc.) are also made to resist water ingress.

Not a simple task.

Many of us complain about the cost of new Canon bodies - being this waterproof would add to the cost (unless you buy a 1Dx - which is largely already water-resistant, but won't survive a swim at all.

The immersible cameras that are on the market are often mono-bloc in construction, with few external controls or parts, in order to limit water ingress.

Cheers

 

[picturesbyme]

..not exactly the same but ...

A long long time ago I used a cheap Oly E3 and my friend still uses an E5.
Rain, snow, beach never been a problem. I shot a lot on the windy beach, got seawater on the cam/lens often. He took his E5 to the beach and got sea water all over on it all the time, got it under water (few inches only) several times. Rinsed it and it's still working perfectly. (not the guy in the vid.)

My point is: If Oly could do it on a sub $1600 body how many years ago? Then Canon ...

http://youtu.be/3bRPsBYpYAw

 

[jrista]

I think this is quite a testament to Canon durability:

Canon 7D - Hardcore Durability Test

Even in the event that you DO get a little, or even a LOT, of water inside one of these cameras...they keep on takin photos.

 

[picturesbyme]

saw that and the freezer test, but I never done anything close to that to my 7D or my 5D ..
have You?
I know they can do a lot - IF - you are lucky but with the e3, e5 it was a regular thing.. and it was still shiny and perfect unlike the burned and freezed cams from drtv..
I never had the courage to wash my 7D and risk the warranty, but with my e3 I knew it can handle it...

 

[Rat]

What we want is 'Hydrophilic' - water-repelling.

Correct term - as used by the BBC in the above program, which I watched with interest, too - is hydrophobic ('tending to repel or fail to mix with water'). This is actually the exact opposite of 'hydrophilic' (lit. 'brother to water'). And by the way: anything with 'hygro' relates to all moisture rather than just to water.

It also requires careful engineering so that all potential points of water ingress (think buttons, switches, displays, battery-compartment, CF-card case, electronic interface points (HDMI, USB, N3, X-Sync, etc.) are also made to resist water ingress.

The hydrophobic coating that the BBC demo'ed could be applied to all surfaces, including those internally in the camera. Such a through-and-through seal, as shown by Miracles of Nature, would not require seals as you describe 'em, it would just make everything water-repellent. This would be done by toying with surface tension on a molecular scale, is what I understood from it.

The difficulty with that solution is electric currents. The smallest scratch in such a coating, e.g. on the contacts of a memory card or in a switch, which tend to be vulnerable to scratches anyway - and the conductivity of water would render your device useless. A phone without an sd-slot, without mechanical switches, with a soldered-in battery and with a properly sealed sim-card slot might be commercially waterproofed using hydrophobic coatings. For electromechanical devices such as dslr's, current solutions are regrettably as pricey and cumbersome as they are optimal, if you ask me.

Mind you, I'm talking about fully waterproofing a camera here. Obviously such a coating could go a long way in making a camera more water-repellant.

 

[jrista]

saw that and the freezer test, but I never done anything close to that to my 7D or my 5D ..
have You?
I know they can do a lot - IF - you are lucky but with the e3, e5 it was a regular thing.. and it was still shiny and perfect unlike the burned and freezed cams from drtv..
I never had the courage to wash my 7D and risk the warranty, but with my e3 I knew it can handle it...

I've never submerged and frozen my 7D, however I have used it in some pretty extreme weather. This April 2012, I spent more than eight hours one day at Chatfield State Park here in Colorado. On that one day, it rained profusely, sleeted, snowed a couple times, and at a couple points it even hailed dime-sized hail. I had my camera out, soaking wet, photographing birds the entire time. You can read about that on my blog. The featured photo shows a torrential mix of sleet and rain from that day. Both my 7D, and my 100-400mm L lens, were drenched for most of the day, and didn't skip a beat. Never had any fogging or anything like that, either on that day or any day since.

 

[picturesbyme]

Cool blog and photos.

 

[thebowtie]

Oh, the problem of me being pedantic! I should have double-checked before posting!
Of course you are correct!

What we want is 'Hydrophilic' - water-repelling.

Correct term - as used by the BBC in the above program, which I watched with interest, too - is hydrophobic ('tending to repel or fail to mix with water'). This is actually the exact opposite of 'hydrophilic' (lit. 'brother to water'). ...

Following up the rest of your post:

The difficulty with that solution is electric currents. The smallest scratch in such a coating, e.g. on the contacts of a memory card or in a switch, which tend to be vulnerable to scratches anyway - and the conductivity of water would render your device useless. A phone without an sd-slot, without mechanical switches, with a soldered-in battery and with a properly sealed sim-card slot might be commercially waterproofed using hydrophobic coatings. For electromechanical devices such as dslr's, current solutions are regrettably as pricey and cumbersome as they are optimal, if you ask me.

Mind you, I'm talking about fully waterproofing a camera here. Obviously such a coating could go a long way in making a camera more water-repellant.

Not only is there the issue of surface damage to the coating creating the risk of electrical problems - there's also the risk of any captured water retained in voids in the equipment - whilst not immediately corrosive, it can cause deposition of dissolved solids (minerals), and suspended matter (dirt) that can further harm the camera.

Keep it all out, I say!