Does weather resistant matters?

That will work for most but not so much for those that had their camera damaged within weeks or a few months after purchase.

Keep in mind that a warranty does no cover weather or impact damage.

Then there is the other matter of some people living the camera at home when it looks like it may be raining or they are going to the beach and don't want to get sand on their camera.

BTW, the camera I use the most is not weatherproof but I have seen enough weather damaged cameras to know that it happens.

Supplement the WR camera/lens with a good rain cover...

12 Best Ways To Protect Camera From Rain - PhotographyAxis

-M

Not uncommon to get a repair report as "water damaged" only to have the customer swear that they never had the camera out in the rain.

Sometime the reason was capillary action . For example water from glass condensation sucked up into the camera.

Weather sealing in itself does not add much cost or weight. But weather sealing are often used on higher end cameras that are both more capable and more robust built.

So you do not necessarily buy weather sealed cameras just for weather sealing but for other reasons, and weather sealing is just an added bonus.

ms18 said:

WR Bodies
+ weather resistant
+ More controls
+ Some performance like buffer
- Heavier
- Expensive

Most manufactures offer same image quality in lighter non WR bodies.
Eg in the past : Canon T2i and 7D...
fuji X-T20 and X-T2
Fuji X-T30 and X-T3

Eg now :
X-T30 ii and X-T4

If that camera breaks you can buy another light weight non WR camera with latest sensor right?

Why pay more money and carry that much weight when you can buy light weight non WR body for cheaper? You can replace it when it break and when you replace you get new technology. You have paid less already right?

I think weather resistant might be ok for those who are shooting very often in extreme conditions. Because it's not worth buying a camera every week or so (assuming lower end bodies will break in those condition immediately). But my question is are these WR cameras that robust and really that Weather resistant compared to lower end bodies? Can they stand 2 of the lighter weight low end camera's lifetime?

Nowadays cameras also differentiate with different sensor. That make sense. For example we can take EOR R7 and EOS R10. In this the chip is different and megapixel count is different. Possibly dynamic range also can be different.

Willing to listen to your thoughts.

Click to expand...

18, you're absolutely right. If you don't foresee being in inclement weather, weather sealing won't matter even one bit. In fact it may help in some situations. Say you get condensation in the lens and likely the camera, it will certainly dry our much faster and more safely the more drafty the body is. It's quite easy to tuck a camera under your coat or keep a towel on it if it's lightly raining. Those that only require a non WR camera are not likely to be out shooting in inclement conditions anyway so no reason to pay a premium for a WR camera. We all know what we need! It's different horses for different courses!!! Same goes for lenses.

It doesn't matter until it did, and then it's too late

WR is rarely the only thing that differentiates two bodies, so if you can live with the cheaper bodies' limitations, by all means, don't buy the more expensive ones.

My first DSLR was fine until I'd learnt more about what I wanted. The next upgrades followed the same pattern: only when I knew what I was missing, did I upgrade. I never broke a camera, but sold a few.

Isn't what most people do? Do what you do, and live with the consequences.

I never chose an upgrade because I wanted WR, but it came with the other improvements over time. It also limits how much dust enters my lenses.

Good luck and good light.

ms18 said:

If that camera breaks you can buy another light weight non WR camera with latest sensor right?

Why pay more money and carry that much weight when you can buy light weight non WR body for cheaper? You can replace it when it break and when you replace you get new technology. You have paid less already right?

I think weather resistant might be ok for those who are shooting very often in extreme conditions. Because it's not worth buying a camera every week or so (assuming lower end bodies will break in those condition immediately). But my question is are these WR cameras that robust and really that Weather resistant compared to lower end bodies? Can they stand 2 of the lighter weight low end camera's lifetime?

Nowadays cameras also differentiate with different sensor. That make sense. For example we can take EOR R7 and EOS R10. In this the chip is different and megapixel count is different. Possibly dynamic range also can be different.

Click to expand...

Yes, one could choose to carry a light-weight camera, and replace it when necessary. Much of the time, however, I will use a weather-resistant camera, when everything is perfectly dry and sunny, because I desire features other than weather-resistance. Indeed, the “lower end” cameras can be annoying to use, when one is accustomed to the feature set and haptics/ergonomics of a higher-end camera.

Those of us who use large lenses may well find that connecting the lenses to small, light-weight cameras can result in an awkward rig. Even when one always supports the large lens, with an upraised left hand, and/or a tripod, some degree of balance is desirable.

An obvious answer, however, is to choose to use some combination of “more-pro” cameras, and less-weather-resistant cameras. My wife owns, and uses, a Nikon Coolpix A as well as the Nikon D850. She also owns and uses a Nikon Coolpix P1000, a Nikon Z6, and, her other DSLRs include a D300s, and a pair of the D500. She is a quite serious photographer, and the mentor who guided my start into serious shooting, with interchangeable-lens system cameras.

I, too, own and use my own Nikon Coolpix A, on the small end, and my own Nikon D850. Plus, I regularly use larger, heavier Nikon D4s and D5 cameras.

We share a Nikon Df, which is a quite small DSLR, with a full-36x24mm-frame sensor, and a Nikon D40x, a compact DX/APS-C DSLR. We do not use these small DSLRs often.

Definitely a nice to have. Not a deal breaker.Have never drowned a camera but it could happen. I live in a dry place. Don’t like going out in the rain. I get that it can be important for some people.

It never mattered to me until I learned that sweat was as bad as weather. On a recent rim to rim Grand Canyon hike, I sweated a lot. Like, soaked clothes, dripping a lot. Apparently dripping on my camera.



Had I not purchased an extended service agreement, repairs would have set me back $570. As it was, the service agreement was $130 for three years. I’ve got about six months left. I know now that I have to be more careful when carrying in strenuous conditions.



I guess my trade off was $130 for a service agreement vs over $1,000 more for weather sealing.

I think unless you are a professional photographer, then weather proofing is not a necessity even though I have a old Pentax K7 and a Sony RX10iv which has claimed limited weather resistance (although I am reluctant to test it). Personally I have only taken photos in light drizzly rain at the most and a light snow shower and as you say, the none weather proofed cameras are usually much lighter and cheaper except that ALL Pentax cameras are properly weather proofed

WiltshireMoonraker59 said:

I think unless you are a professional photographer, then weather proofing is not a necessity even though I have a old Pentax K7 and a Sony RX10iv which has claimed limited weather resistance (although I am reluctant to test it). Personally I have only taken photos in light drizzly rain at the most and a light snow shower and as you say, the none weather proofed cameras are usually much lighter and cheaper except that ALL Pentax cameras are properly weather proofed

Click to expand...

It’s not that simple Many professional photographers never shoot outside a studio A pro will generally buy exactly what is needed and it’s rare to buy a capability you aren’t selling.

ms18 said:

Why pay more money and carry that much weight when you can buy light weight non WR body for cheaper? You can replace it when it break and when you replace you get new technology. You have paid less already right?

Click to expand...

Those are very odd assumptions. No, I do not expose my non-weather-resistant cameras to harsh and harmful conditions thinking hey, I'll just buy new ones if they break.

mahidoes said:

But my question is are these WR cameras that robust and really that Weather resistant compared to lower end bodies?

Click to expand...

Some are, some aren't. There's a wide range.

mahidoes said:

Can they stand 2 of the lighter weight low end camera's lifetime?

Click to expand...

It depends on the specific cameras and what conditions you expose them to.

HappyMartin said:

WiltshireMoonraker59 said:

I think unless you are a professional photographer, then weather proofing is not a necessity even though I have a old Pentax K7 and a Sony RX10iv which has claimed limited weather resistance (although I am reluctant to test it). Personally I have only taken photos in light drizzly rain at the most and a light snow shower and as you say, the none weather proofed cameras are usually much lighter and cheaper except that ALL Pentax cameras are properly weather proofed

Click to expand...

It’s not that simple Many professional photographers never shoot outside a studio A pro will generally buy exactly what is needed and it’s rare to buy a capability you aren’t selling.

Click to expand...

The sealings needed for weather sealing on a camera add maybe $10 to the manufacturing cost of a camera. Which is why weather sealing are included nowadays on most (non-entry level) cameras intended for field usage.

I have hard to believe that any professional photographer choosing not to get a camera just because it is weather sealed.

It depends on what you shoot. My friend and I were shooting lightning in a storm last autumn, his A7R3+Tamron combo died while my Olympus was fine. That was an extreme situation of course.







--

ms18 said:

WR Bodies
+ weather resistant
+ More controls
+ Some performance like buffer
- Heavier
- Expensive

Most manufactures offer same image quality in lighter non WR bodies.
Eg in the past : Canon T2i and 7D...
fuji X-T20 and X-T2
Fuji X-T30 and X-T3

Eg now :
X-T30 ii and X-T4

If that camera breaks you can buy another light weight non WR camera with latest sensor right?

Why pay more money and carry that much weight when you can buy light weight non WR body for cheaper? You can replace it when it break and when you replace you get new technology. You have paid less already right?

Click to expand...

There are FAR more reasons to buy the more expensive cameras than just weather sealing. Indeed, that is maybe not even in the top five reasons why people buy some of the better cameras. Because, well, they're better in many ways.

Whether that matters depends on whether you need those other features or specs. As with weather sealing, maybe you don't.

mahidoes said:

I think weather resistant might be ok for those who are shooting very often in extreme conditions. Because it's not worth buying a camera every week or so (assuming lower end bodies will break in those condition immediately). But my question is are these WR cameras that robust and really that Weather resistant compared to lower end bodies? Can they stand 2 of the lighter weight low end camera's lifetime?

Click to expand...

Yes, a camera with an actual tested rating for weather, water, and dust resistance is more robust. But Olympus/OM is the only interchangeable lens camera maker that actually gets a certification. The fact that others don't probably tells you a lot.

See this eg: https://petapixel.com/2022/05/27/ho...eatherproof-cameras/?utm_source=pocket_mylist

Also, many phones have similar ratings. I can dunk mine underwater; I've use it to take shots in tidepools.

As for the non rated cameras, some are better than others. It's a pity all the reviewers don't do us a service and check this vs just parroting spec sheets and press releases; I think the Northrups did it once but I rarely if ever see them test manufacturer's claims.

And remember the lens has to be weather proof too.

robgendreau said:

ms18 said:

WR Bodies
+ weather resistant
+ More controls
+ Some performance like buffer
- Heavier
- Expensive

Most manufactures offer same image quality in lighter non WR bodies.
Eg in the past : Canon T2i and 7D...
fuji X-T20 and X-T2
Fuji X-T30 and X-T3

Eg now :
X-T30 ii and X-T4

If that camera breaks you can buy another light weight non WR camera with latest sensor right?

Why pay more money and carry that much weight when you can buy light weight non WR body for cheaper? You can replace it when it break and when you replace you get new technology. You have paid less already right?

Click to expand...

There are FAR more reasons to buy the more expensive cameras than just weather sealing. Indeed, that is maybe not even in the top five reasons why people buy some of the better cameras. Because, well, they're better in many ways.

Whether that matters depends on whether you need those other features or specs. As with weather sealing, maybe you don't.

robgendreau said:

I think weather resistant might be ok for those who are shooting very often in extreme conditions. Because it's not worth buying a camera every week or so (assuming lower end bodies will break in those condition immediately). But my question is are these WR cameras that robust and really that Weather resistant compared to lower end bodies? Can they stand 2 of the lighter weight low end camera's lifetime?

Click to expand...

Yes, a camera with an actual tested rating for weather, water, and dust resistance is more robust. But Olympus/OM is the only interchangeable lens camera maker that actually gets a certification. The fact that others don't probably tells you a lot.

Click to expand...

The IP-rating you can get on a ILC is kind of pointless as it really do not tell the whole story. FI OM-1 got a rating of IP53, which means it is not fully protected against dust and only splash proof against water in certain directions. The actual weather seals on OM-1 and many other weather sealed ILCs are better than that, but they all have a weak spot - the lens mount, that will limit possible IP-rating.

robgendreau said:

See this eg: https://petapixel.com/2022/05/27/ho...eatherproof-cameras/?utm_source=pocket_mylist

Also, many phones have similar ratings. I can dunk mine underwater; I've use it to take shots in tidepools.

Click to expand...

Smartphones usually have much better IP-rating in general, like IP68 which mean they are totally protected against dust and can be submerged under water.

robgendreau said:

As for the non rated cameras, some are better than others. It's a pity all the reviewers don't do us a service and check this vs just parroting spec sheets and press releases; I think the Northrups did it once but I rarely if ever see them test manufacturer's claims.

And remember the lens has to be weather proof too.

Click to expand...

Fogel70 said:

HappyMartin said:

WiltshireMoonraker59 said:

I think unless you are a professional photographer, then weather proofing is not a necessity even though I have a old Pentax K7 and a Sony RX10iv which has claimed limited weather resistance (although I am reluctant to test it). Personally I have only taken photos in light drizzly rain at the most and a light snow shower and as you say, the none weather proofed cameras are usually much lighter and cheaper except that ALL Pentax cameras are properly weather proofed

Click to expand...

It’s not that simple Many professional photographers never shoot outside a studio A pro will generally buy exactly what is needed and it’s rare to buy a capability you aren’t selling.

Click to expand...

The sealings needed for weather sealing on a camera add maybe $10 to the manufacturing cost of a camera. Which is why weather sealing are included nowadays on most (non-entry level) cameras intended for field usage.

I have hard to believe that any professional photographer choosing not to get a camera just because it is weather sealed.

Click to expand...

I never said a pro wouldn’t buy it because it is weather sealed, that would be silly. I meant of course that not being weather sealed would not be a reason to not buy a camera if you were a studio based photographer.

robgendreau said:

Yes, a camera with an actual tested rating for weather, water, and dust resistance is more robust. But Olympus/OM is the only interchangeable lens camera maker that actually gets a certification. "The fact that others don't probably tells you a lot".



And remember the lens has to be weather proof too.

Click to expand...

Sorry Rob but I'm not buying your line! If you need rated equipment that's great and it works for you and others for which ratings are important. Some companies probably can't sell a camera without slapping a rating on it. I shoot Canons and I'm pretty sure they are not rated but that doesn't stop more pros from using Canon than any other brand in the rain. As far as I know Nikons are not rated either?

I shoot Cyclocross professionally. It's a winter sport that's done in the most inclement weather possible. I use my 1Dx bodies with a 200 1.8 prime lens since they have no external moving parts like zooms do. I shoot in in open hard rain and have never had a problem in spite of have no ratings. BTW in ten years of shooting sports I've never even seen a pro using an Oly, in wet or dry. Wassup wit dat?

If some feel safer buying with a rating that's great but you'd think every pro would be using only rated cameras in the rain but that's just NOT the case!

John

If your camera gets exposed to the elements regularly, weather resistance matters.