Weather Sealing is a Gimmick.

mpgxsvcd wrote:

Lab D wrote:

I drive my 2 wheel drive car in the snow and rain therefore 4 wheel drive MUST be a gimmick. No need for it.

And don't get me started on safety harnesses! They are a gimmick too, and these guys had no need for them. I am sure you won't want to pay extra for safety ropes and such either...

http://earthsky.org/earth/success-two-men-complete-historic-climb-at-yosemites-el-capitan

I never said there was no need for weather sealing. I simply said it is a gimmick. Yes they put little gaskets around the lens that provides a better seal. However, they don’t just charge you a few extra dollars for the $.50 parts that they added.

They charge you extra warranty prices instead. Those are typically on the order of 5%-10% of the total cost of the item. On top of that the weather sealing only guarantees that it won’t fail in certain manners. For instance the lens and sensor are protected against dust because of the O-ring seal.

That is great when the lens is on the camera. However, if you change lenses while at the beach and sand gets on the sensor or in the lens they will deny your warranty claim.

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.

Just look at the weather sealed document that was posted. It is full of disclaimers that are situations that you probably would find yourself in. For instance they can completely void the weather portion of the warranty if it is used in a sandy environment.

I bet a lot of people thought that the weather sealed feature covers them at the beach. It simply doesn’t. In fact it wouldn’t cover you at all if the manufacturer determines the failure to be from “Sand” as opposed to “Dust”. Just look at this disclaimer at the end.

“Service Advisory:

Product damage caused by sand or liquid contamination will void the original warranty and any extended warranties if applicable. In most cases Olympus service will not be able to repair the camera. In these situations, the camera would be deemed beyond reliable repair and returned without servicing.”

What is the difference between sand and dust? What is the difference between rain and liquid? They put a bunch of statements in their marketing that make it sound like weather sealing will prevent all types of weather related damage. Just look at this statement.

“powerfully remove dust particles so users can shoot and change lenses in dusty environments without sacrificing image quality.”

That sounds great but their distinction between “dust” and “sand” is what pretty much eliminates all real world dust/sand issues from falling under the warrantee. You could consider pretty much any dust particle to be 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.

My main point is that I don’t believe that the weather sealing warranty really covers as much as most people think it does. That is a Gimmick to me. They make claims that sound great but in reality they have no intention of covering all of the things that you think are covered under the warranty.

As far as the climbing analogy goes. That is a poor analogy. The rope and harness are guaranteed to prevent all climbing related falls when used properly. That is a situation where a negative outcome will almost certainly happen if you don’t use them and use them properly. The manufacturer guarantees that the rope and harness will not break if you use them under normal conditions and in the prescribed manner.

With the camera and lens weather sealing I am willing to bet that most situations that we think are covered actually are not. In fact there are very few things that are covered by the weather sealing warranty.

If I am wrong then there are tons of people out there with non-weather sealed lenses that are having problems with dust, moisture, and temperature issues. In addition that must also mean that not a single person out there has had any issues at all with a weather sealed lens.

So let’s hear them. Who out there has had their non-weather sealed camera or lens repaired for weather damage that would have been covered if it was marked as weather sealed?

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. 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.

It seems your problem is with the mealy-mouthed language of warranties, and on that point I fully agree.  But your initial post seemed to suggest that the engineering involved in making a camera weather sealed was itself a scam.  That's a tougher claim to substantiate.  It is very hard to determine those exact circumstances where a non-weather sealed camera would fail yet a weather sealed camera would survive.  And it is harder to describe those circumstances in legaleze.  Yet I do think O-rings and other measures must have some beneficial effect under some circumstances.  As I travel to humid and other nasty climates, I'd pay a (small) premium for some added protection, and have done.  For other folks, they choose not to.  Horses for courses.