Weather Sealing is a Gimmick.

This is the first thread that has addressed this most un-trivial issue: how should we be using our cameras without risk of bricking them.

Some comments are articles of faith and others anecdotal both positive and negative in terms of personal experience with the consequences of water exposure and warranty claims.

I think in that regard there is nothing further to be said that would not be redundant.

That having been said, the point of my post is that there seem to be two incontrovertible "facts":

(1) Oly has clearly stated that they will not warrant or even repair at owners cost any camera found to have been damaged by water exposure. Perhaps they don't "really mean it" but I for one wouldn't count on it.

(2) Oly has given the EM 1 an IP rating of x1. As stated earlier in this thread, the x means that they have passed on any claim of dust resistance and the 1 is the lowest rating for water exposure: offering only resistance to dripping water for 10 min as long as the camera is not tilted more than 15 degrees which in practical terms is useless.

The only remaining question that I have is: why did Oly give the camera this rating. Is it because it is the absolute minimum necessary to claim an IP rating at all? Did their tests actually determine that it cannot indeed withstand dripping water when tilted beyond 15 degrees or was it actually able to withstand dripping when tilted or spraying or splashing water (IP 2, 3, & 4 respectively) which would seem to be more consistent with their PR & video claims (as well as many of the posted anecdotes and photos)?

It is my understanding that the IP rating is just a set of criteria and that the testing is done by the manufacturer and this is not a rating performed by an independent test body.

If Oly has done the testing, I for one would like to know whether it really tested out to IP 2, 3 or 4 (and perhaps had a dust rating) and they for whatever reason were just being conservative.