Weather Sealing is a Gimmick.

mpgxsvcd wrote:

I never said there was no need for weather sealing. I simply said it is a gimmick.

Sounds like a distinction without a difference.

The point isn’t that they didn’t do anything at all to help prevent weather damage. There are things that they have done to prevent that. The point is that the situations they warranty for weather damage are far outweighed by the situations that are not covered under the weather sealed warranty.

Errrr... wha?

The purpose of weather-sealing isn't to screw people over on the warranty. The idea is to make sure that you can take the camera into the middle of nowhere, and it'll keep working.

Sure, it's a marketing point, and many an enthusiast who buys weather-sealed gear don't need it.  There's lots of things like that in photography.  By the same token, no one's forcing you to shell out for weather sealing.

Meanwhile:  Weather-sealing does not mean you can take your camera to Burning Man, refuse to get a CLA, and everything will be just dandy.

Yes, lots of people overestimate warranty coverage. By the same token, some people are oblivious, or refuse to accept responsibility for breaking their stuff.

No one's pulling a fast one here.

What is the difference between sand and dust...?  You could consider pretty much any dust particle to be sand.

Please tell me you know the difference -- the repair shops certainly do.  And no, you can't pretend that dust on a sensor is "secretly" sand.

Now I am not saying that they will simply deny all warranty claims no matter what the situation simply because of their legalese in the documentation. They will look at the cost of repairing it vs. the amount you paid for the extra weather sealing(Basically a warranty). If they determine that your past and future business is worth it to incur the cost of the repair then they will honor it. If not then they won’t.

Seriously?  That's your argument?

The repair department isn't going to look up your name in a database, decide how much you spend on gear per year, and use that as a criteria.  They're going to look at the nature of the damage, and guess whether or not it should be covered.

I for one have some dust in my weather sealed 35-100mm F2.8 lens. It isn’t a big deal though. I shoot wide open mostly so I don’t notice it. It basically is too big a hassle for me to have it replaced and Panasonic knows that.

How would they know that?  Are they reading your email?

They know that most people will happily pay for the weather proof warranty and then not actually follow up on it if something goes wrong.

That's what this is about?

You paid big bucks for a lens that happens to be dust-sealed.  It's got dust -- presumably actual dust.  (Maybe it's nothing, but maybe not.)  But, you can't be bothered to send it in, because it's a hassle for you.  And whose fault is this?

It sounds to me like you need to get your gear in gear, rather than blame manufacturers for not providing warranty service before you even send it in.