Of course not. Do people go diving with the E5 without a special housing? But, just to be clear, I'm not saying the 5D has any sealing anywhere near that of the E5. I'm just saying that I've used it in heavy rain and snow. Was I worried about the camera failing? Sure. But I did it anyway.
Given the 7D problems -- where some people have acted on information from others that it is weather sealed then got themselves a dead camera -- I wouldn't risk exposing the 5D to rain.
I rarely do -- it's not often I see a scene in the rain that's worth shooting. And, despite the fact that I always use a hood on my lens, water drops on the FE (especially for wides) can be an issue, in terms of getting a "good" pic, in heavier rain. But, sometimes, it's worth the risk.
i dont see other cameras underwater in swimming pools without protection, hot pools in Iceland, half frozen from a user here, never seen it.
So you've not seen it. And?
It should be obvious.
I'll discuss "should be obvious" a bit further below.
You shouldn't confuse what the warranty covers with what the actual capability is .
I don't -- ergo I'll take my 5D in the rain and snow.
Remember that Olympus demonstrate the capability at trade shows.
High-end bodies and lenses are often sealed, and usually quite well. From user reports it appears that no comparable system exceeds the Olympus system in this capability.
Well, "user reports" also tell us how horrible the corners of FF, since some users are expecting sharp corners wide open, for whatever reason.
But, yes, I completely agree that the E5 has excellent ruggedness. The question, however, is how it compares to cameras such as the K5, D300, D700, etc., and how that translates in practical terms.
For example, let's say the E5 can survive, on average, for 10 minutes submerged 1m under water whereas the K5 can only make it 8 minutes. What conclusion would we make of this in practical terms for people who don't leave their camera 1m under water for any length of time? Would it imply that the E5 will last longer under severe conditions? I don't think so.
(We can't be sure that a Nikon D3 or Canon 1D with a suitable lens wouldn't also survive a dip into a thermal pool, or routine rinsing off in a shower, due to lack of such reports. Certainly press photographers always seem to use rain hoods on such equipment, but that may be prudence rather than a lack of faith.)
As I said above, there is the issue of the quality of your photos with water all over the front element.
But, yes, this brings up "what should be obvious". The fact that we've seen the E5 take some abuse and not seen other cameras subjected to the same abuse speaks no more to the superiority of the E5's weather resistance than it speaks to the superiority of the intelligence, or financial sense, of those who didn't do the same with other brand cameras.
But Ive seen Olympus gear in that situation and have every faith in it, especially with a modicum of care and a minimisation of risk
The OP, apparently, had the same faith. Unfortunately, he got unlucky.
Given the options seem to be misfortune or misuse it seems more likely that misfortune was the cause.
Either way, he was unlucky. The fact that his E5 failed and was not covered under warranty does not speak badly for the E5.
He should have queried the finding, in any case. A manufacturer does not have to prove grounds for dismissing a warranty claim, AFAIK, but it never hurts to explain your use and ask for a suggestion as to how the sand may have appeared. If they decide that you aren't a "problem customer" they may revisit the decision. An over-zealous / just plain wrong technician may be the real problem in this case.
As has been brought up before, regardless of what the warranty says, or does not say, I've not seen any controlled systematic testing of various cameras to make a conclusion about which is more rugged than the other.
There's no doubt that the E5 is excellent in this regard, and I've not seen anyone deny it. However, to say it's
better than cameras such as the K5, D300, etc., well, I've not seen any evidence one way or another.
But, let's say it is better. Is it "enough better" to where it has any practical relevance? That is, if someone were deciding to get an E5 or K5, would the differences in weather protection play any role in their decision, even given that they used their camera in harsh enviroments?
but I don't know what makes the 50-200 harder to pass through other than the length of the lens. All it takes is more time. Anyway, the 12-60 is an SWD lens but the OP is talking about the old 50-200 (I assume) and that is totally different from the SWD. It is also older and assuming it is worn out, not as tight as the 12-60 or any new lens.
