The specification for 0-45C relates to a lot of other specifications, and has nothing to do with whether cameras will "operate" or not.
While I am not saying that I don't believe you, I would definitely not take it for granted that you can submerge a camera without under water casing. You might have been lucky, that's all. In most cases, we read the opposite when this happens.
I have used EVERY camera I ever owned since 1970 in weathers well below that, down to -30°C or even less. The chill is not a problem as long as the LCD or the batteries won't freeze. They are not stating anything sub zero because sub zero temperatures are relative to time as well, so while a few hours in -30°C is OK as long as you can survive, if I would leave the camera unattended over night it might fail, the LCD, the battery and the lubes inside might freeze. Also, if the temperature is -30°C when I leave the camera outside it might drop well below that during some period. If cameras couldn't have been used in sub zero temperatures we would not be able to take winter images.
...the rubber can hardly add anything to the total weight. Must be something else as well if the two cameras are significantly different in weight.
Of course. What did you expect? I mean, cameras don't even have to be specifically weather sealed to withstand snow. Snow is very gentle and does no harm at all, when melted it quickly evaporates, not entering the camera unless you are really unlucky. I think most people are a bit paranoid when snow comes and hide their non-sealed cameras too fast.
One of the very few sensible posts about weather sealing that I have ever seen.
Though one should add, there is no reason why 'plastic' is not a perfectly satisfactory engineering material. After all, F1 cars are made out of it.
Water drops are not too bad either. Surface tension means that they are quite unlikely to find their way between well engineered, closely fitting components whether on not there is an O-ring or gasket. It's when you have a film of water that capillary action can take it in, but the real problem is mist and water vapour.
Yeah, right... except of course for all the parts where metal is better. Engines, roll bars, wheels, axels, frames, etc etc.
Where 'metal' is better is a very nuanced design decision. Taking them one by one. Engines are made of a variety of materials, but mostly metal. The major reason for that in F1 is that exotic composites in the engine are banned, because they could lead to too much expense. Metal is used because it is cheaper, not better. There have been examples of composite/ceramic engines, which would almost certainly produce more power in a lighter package, once they had been developed to be reliable - but that whole process would be formidably expensive and would lead to a huge cost escalation in the sport, so is banned, as are almost all exotic metals, which would undoubtedly be 'better'. Roll bars - if you could point to a F1 car with a metal roll bar, I'd be interested to see it. Wheels certainly have been constructed of composites in the past, and are in the case of other forms of racing, but the F1 regs dictate that they must be made of magnesium alloy, again to avoid the costs of a composite war for wheels - casting or forging in metal is a much cheaper process than laying up composites. 'Axels' (I suppose coupled with Rose joints) don't exist. These cars have fully independent suspension.The suspension rods are not made of metal, but of 'plastic'. Yes, the stub axles are usually mainly 'metal', simply that the ease of machining offsets any small advantage in using composites in that area. The suspension uprights are aluminium, by regulation. No-one pretends that superior materials could not be found. 'Frames' do not exist in a modern racing car (I understand American practice often drags behind). The monocoque body/chassis is a carbon composite sandwich with a aluminium honeycomb separator. The aluminium in this case is not selected for any structural property, simply that it is the cheapest and easiest way to separate the composites.
I'm always reasonable.
My point was not that. The point is that a capability not covered by warranty is effectively worthless, because it is just a name. 'Weatherproof' means nothing without a specification of which 'weather' it should be proof against. A warm breeze? And if a specification is made, as it should be, then the manufacturer should be willing to (and in some jurisdictions, is legally bound to) warrant against it. I also think you are entirely wrong about the impossibility of proofing a SLR. I have designed equipment to marine industry requirements. There are no controls on a DSLR that cannot quite easily be made completely watertight. The bayonet lens mount is the biggest issue, but that is not an insurmountable problem, by any means. Finally, on 'Mil spec'. This has nothing to do with Mil specs, this is 'Ingress Protection' rating system, which is IEC, nothing to do with the military.
I certainly would, since I know that no manufacturer believes sufficiently in their 'weather sealing' to be willing to guarantee it.
