Weather Sealing is a Gimmick.

In fact, as far as Olympus is concerned, weather sealing is NOT a warranty. If you read through Olympus' latest statement in regards to weatherproofing (cited in one of the responses to your post): http://www.olympusamerica.com/files/oima_cckb/E-M1_Weather_Resistance_EN.pdf you will see that Oly has clearly stated that any damage found due to "sand or liquid contamination" will not be covered under warranty PERIOD - with no qualifiers as to whether the camera has been used "properly or not". The buyer is on his own if he chooses to use the camera as Oly clearly encourages him to do in "rain, snow and dust "and "harsh environments"  (as stated in the initial part of the same document and described quite graphically in numerous other Oly PR blurbs and videos). Further, to add insult to injury, it is not just a matter of taking responsibility for a few hundred dollars for repair costs, but the camera will "be deemed beyond reliable repair and returned without servicing" - no doubt with shipping costs on us.

To my knowledge, this is the first unequivocal statement from Oly in regards to how they will treat water damage warranty claims in future.

Perhaps  the most generous statement that one can make about this Oly statement - as opposed to ranting about flagrant hypocrisy - is that Oly has designed and presumably tested the weather sealing of these cameras and lenses and - even though they have not given it an IP rating - have determined that if all seals are maintained that the camera can be safely used in harsh conditions short of submersion and being held under running water. - although I'm not sure how the latter differs from driving rain. That having been said, it appears that Oly feels that they are in no position to know - or no longer wish to put in the position where they must demonstrate for each warranty rejection - whether a given camera returned for repair with water damage has had the seals maintained and in place or even whether the camera might have been submerged.

This is certainly predictable and probably inevitable given the absolute dependence on user compliance for protection against water damage and I would agree that Oly must have set aside a budget allocation for such warranty repairs as a matter of good will (to say nothing of not undermining the major marketing hype for  weatherproofed pro level equipment) and have found that claims have exceeded that budget given that most water damage was not even repairable. After all, how many cameras can you replace under warranty especially when you have actually encouraged users to use the equipment regularly in harsh conditions.

So, given that weather sealing is NOT a warranty, are we better off with gear that is built in such way that if the seals are in place and maintained that it MAY be safely used in rain, snow or dusty conditions and is such equipment worth paying more for?

Given that one will be "betting the farm" in terms of risking replacing the entire camera &/or lens, is weatherproofing indeed something that just gives a false sense of security - gimmick or not - and would one be better off having equipment about which one has no illusions as to vulnerability to harsh conditions?

I myself found the Oly statement - which has been the subject of other posts - a watershed (pun intended) in terms of how I intend to use my equipment in future but I expect that opinions will vary.