Weather Sealing is a Gimmick.

RealPancho wrote:

mpgxsvcd wrote:

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Confronted with two lenses of the same spec and price, one is sealed and one is not, which would you choose?

Cheers,

Rick

Basically, I would always chose the non weather sealed option. I don't think I would ever pay extra

He said, "same spec and price." See above.

for a weather sealed camera or lens if I had another less expensive option that wasn’t weather sealed.

If I don’t have a weather sealed camera then I would never ever consider paying extra

He said, "same spec and price." See above.

for a weather sealed lens if a less expensive non-weather sealed option was available.

In addition, if all of my lenses are not weather sealed then I would never pay extra

He said, "same spec and price." See above.

for a weather sealed body if a less expensive non-weather sealed option was available.

The only time I would consider paying extra

Once more, with feeling, see above.

for weather sealing is if I knew it was always going to be used according to their requirements(ie: weather sealed lens and camera under their strict conditions). In addition I would have to have some reason why I thought the camera was likely to break under the conditions that were covered under the weather sealing warranty.

Please note that I own or will own 3 weather sealed cameras(GH3, GH4, EM-5 MKII) and a weather sealed lens 35-100 F2.8. However, I never intend to use the weather sealing warranty because I rarely use that equipment in adverse conditions. I use equipment that is very inexpensive(ie: E-PM2) in those conditions instead.

Same specs and price? Never going to happen, so it's a moot point...