Weather Sealing Torture Test: Canon, Olympus, Nikon Pass.. Sony?

[ecqns]

There's something sad about a Sony user, posting and defending Sony, in a Canon forum. These defenders are not enlightening anyone, they are just highlighting their insecurities (love how dynamic range is mentioned in a thread about weather sealing, sigh).

This is like talking to foxnews online commenters sometimes.
I am here because I used to use Canon DSLRs but still use EF lenses (TS-Es). If Nikon comes out with a wider than 17mm TS-E I would check out a Nikon body b/c they have great DR like the Sonys. I use the best tool for what my job requires. It does not require shooting in a downpour but it does require high DR. I only jumped in this thread b/c I've used the Sonys' in misty conditions over the years and have not had an issue with water at all. The Sony mist test was flawed b/c it already took in water in the downpour test. So they should have tested them from light mist to heavy rain. I use my equipment as tools - if something was to get damaged, I'd just get it fixed and use the backup.

My first work cameras were a Pentax 67 and a Calumet view camera so that's where I'm coming from.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I use the best tool for what my job requires. It does not require shooting in a downpour but it does require high DR.

So, 13.5 stops of DR and you keep your job, but 12.6 stops of DR and you're fired. Makes sense.

The Sony mist test was flawed b/c it already took in water in the downpour test. So they should have tested them from light mist to heavy rain.

Exactly. Because in the real world, rain always follows mist, but mist never follows rain. That makes even more sense!

 

[woodman411]

There's something sad about a Sony user, posting and defending Sony, in a Canon forum. These defenders are not enlightening anyone, they are just highlighting their insecurities (love how dynamic range is mentioned in a thread about weather sealing, sigh).

This is like talking to foxnews online commenters sometimes.
I am here because I used to use Canon DSLRs but still use EF lenses (TS-Es). If Nikon comes out with a wider than 17mm TS-E I would check out a Nikon body b/c they have great DR like the Sonys. I use the best tool for what my job requires. It does not require shooting in a downpour but it does require high DR. I only jumped in this thread b/c I've used the Sonys' in misty conditions over the years and have not had an issue with water at all. The Sony mist test was flawed b/c it already took in water in the downpour test. So they should have tested them from light mist to heavy rain. I use my equipment as tools - if something was to get damaged, I'd just get it fixed and use the backup.

My first work cameras were a Pentax 67 and a Calumet view camera so that's where I'm coming from.

This thread is about weather sealing. Not about dynamic range, not about Nikon, your work, Pentax, or Calumet. This is about insecurity expressed through these irrelevant details, mixed with a condescending tone ("I choose the best tool"), posted on a CANON forum, to do what? The thin veneer of enlightenment doesn't hide too well the agenda that DPR/Rishi and their followers are pushing.

 

[Don Haines]

I use my equipment as tools - if something was to get damaged, I'd just get it fixed and use the backup.

I also use my equipment as tools, but prefer to get the tool that can survive the job..... but then again, we obviously have different requirements......

 

[Don Haines]

Did you read Larsskv's post? I think you didn't and are assuming the camera that started working again won't stop working at some point in the future as a direct but delayed result of the water ingress.

In case you aren't aware, that's a common occurrence with water ingress into electronics. When the water is present, contacts are short-circuited and the device doesn't work. Then, once the water has evaporated, the device resumes normal function. However, unless the water was lab-grade ultra pure (the stuff coming from a sprinkler or falling from the sky isn't), the water exposure and the trace salts left behind after it evaporates (or not trace, in the case of salt water exposure) begin the process of corrosion, which progresses inexorably over a period of weeks and months. When the corrosion becomes severe enough, the device fails again...that time, permanently.

We had a bunch of “sealed” satellite phones that we used in areas without cell coverage. The sealing was not good, they misted over from internal condensation and died. After drying out in the lab they came back to life, but within a year, they were all permanently dead.

Any camera which does not have the sealing to pass that shower test, is a fair weather toy.

 

[Talys]

I use my equipment as tools - if something was to get damaged, I'd just get it fixed and use the backup.

I also use my equipment as tools, but prefer to get the tool that can survive the job..... but then again, we obviously have different requirements......

There's also a question of cost. I guarantee that any one of the cameras tested that has failed due to internal water damage will not be cheap to fix.

Any camera which does not have the sealing to pass that shower test, is a fair weather toy.

I'm probably as fair weather as they come; I don't really like activities in the rain, and won't seek to do it for photography. Any time I go to the lake or for a hike it will be on a nice day. But sometimes it happens, even if 99% of my photography is indoors or on clear days. On the odd time that I want to be out there, or that I simply just get caught out in the rain (it can change pretty quick where I live), I really don't want to worry about is whether my thousands-of-dollars gear will survive.

 

[Neil1000]

Throughout my Canon days I kept a $6 pair of Optech rainsleeves in my bag - they cope with tropical rain. I have them available for my Sony a7r3 should the need arise.

 

[dak723]

I use my equipment as tools - if something was to get damaged, I'd just get it fixed and use the backup.

I also use my equipment as tools, but prefer to get the tool that can survive the job..... but then again, we obviously have different requirements......

There's also a question of cost. I guarantee that any one of the cameras tested that has failed due to internal water damage will not be cheap to fix.

Any camera which does not have the sealing to pass that shower test, is a fair weather toy.

I'm probably as fair weather as they come; I don't really like activities in the rain, and won't seek to do it for photography. Any time I go to the lake or for a hike it will be on a nice day. But sometimes it happens, even if 99% of my photography is indoors or on clear days. On the odd time that I want to be out there, or that I simply just get caught out in the rain (it can change pretty quick where I live), I really don't want to worry about is whether my thousands-of-dollars gear will survive.

Quite frankly, if Sony paid so little attention to the weather sealing, I would be very apprehensive as to the build quality of everything else.

 

[Larsskv]

The irony here is Sony’s marketing. On the front page on Sony.coms page of the A7RIII, they provide this statement:

“Refine your sense of reality with α7R III — an ideal partner offering superior speed, high-resolution imaging, pro-class operability, and reliable performance even under harsh conditions.”

https://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7rm3

They truly do live up to their marketing claims... :

 

[Don Haines]

Throughout my Canon days I kept a $6 pair of Optech rainsleeves in my bag - they cope with tropical rain. I have them available for my Sony a7r3 should the need arise.

I carry an umbrella on "iffy" days... Even though I know my gear is well sealed, it makes me feel better.....

 

[Talys]

Throughout my Canon days I kept a $6 pair of Optech rainsleeves in my bag - they cope with tropical rain. I have them available for my Sony a7r3 should the need arise.

I carry an umbrella on "iffy" days... Even though I know my gear is well sealed, it makes me feel better.....

I live in Vancouver. Three quarters of the year, I have an umbrella with me