Does weather resistant matters?

bastibe said:

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

Click to expand...

That depends-

Lens Rentals | Blog

-M

Pentax, Olympus ..

Are the only makers that seem to make weather resistant camera systems that actually work.

But I haven't yet compromised on other things that I like to have taken the plunge and bought into them.

Sadly my Nikon D800 isn't sealed to any standard, so I avoid the wet.

Mark_A

Not if you have a bag.

I’m not a pro. I have 1camera and 1 lens and I don’t have cash lying around to replace them if I unexpectedly get caught in a thunderstorm and they get drenched.

I pretty much take my camera with me all the time. I don’t want to worry about weather while I’m taking a photo/video. would suck if I spent $1000s to go to a F1 race and it starts to rain.



I will ONLY buy WR and dust resistant photo gear.

Here is an example, not a good one..., of why sometime it matters.

I was stuck inside because it was heavily raining outside when I decided to wear my full rain kit (including gumboots) and go for a walk.

There is no way I would have taken my usual APS camera with tele but took the Pana 300 for the walk.

I did snap a few shots, this is one , Royal Spoonbills in the rain :

JohnSil said:

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

Click to expand...

A rating is based on testing. It's just factual. Canon doesn't do it. Not sure why, but maybe it's to sell CPS memberships and warranties (kidding).

I just pointed that out. I care not what any pro or amateur uses. I make no recommendation, although I have have washed off my Pentax with a hose : I shoot motox some. But ratings do at least carry some weight, and given that Canon et al will reject a warranty claim for water damage, good luck. I've used an R6 in the rain, but I have no faith Canon will give me a new one if it fails from that. Canon also maintained in some places that the RP I owned for a while had some level of weather resistance, but that was a bad joke. Unless the weather they were referring to was golf ball sized hail.

But still, I feel it would be better if, like the smartphones, they did ratings. Real ones. Based on testing, not anecdotes. YMMV.

robgendreau said:

JohnSil said:

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

Click to expand...

A rating is based on testing. It's just factual. Canon doesn't do it. Not sure why, but maybe it's to sell CPS memberships and warranties (kidding).

I just pointed that out. I care not what any pro or amateur uses. I make no recommendation, although I have have washed off my Pentax with a hose : I shoot motox some. But ratings do at least carry some weight, and given that Canon et al will reject a warranty claim for water damage, good luck. I've used an R6 in the rain, but I have no faith Canon will give me a new one if it fails from that.

Click to expand...

iP-rating will not give you warranty on water damages. I doubt OM digital will accept a warranty claim on a water damaged camera just like no smartphone manufacturer with IP-rating on smartphones will do.

The OM digital warranty do not cover any damages from humidity, water, sand, etc....

robgendreau said:

Canon also maintained in some places that the RP I owned for a while had some level of weather resistance, but that was a bad joke. Unless the weather they were referring to was golf ball sized hail.

But still, I feel it would be better if, like the smartphones, they did ratings. Real ones. Based on testing, not anecdotes. YMMV.

Click to expand...

As a hobby and travel photographer I've found myself out in significant rain on occasion. While I attempt to protect my camera with either a plastic bag or the OpTech camera sleeve, I appreciate not having to panic over a raindrop.

Nikon and others have manufactured some waterproof point-and-shoot camera for people who are not interested in higher end gear.

robgendreau said:

..

But still, I feel it would be better if, like the smartphones, they did ratings. Real ones. Based on testing, not anecdotes. YMMV.

Click to expand...

No reason why cameras and gear couldn't use the IP Rating system.

It is quite straightforward and easy to comprehend.

Mark_A

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...

I thought we are supposed to be moving away from the disposable society? This proposal simply doesn't make ecological or financial sense.

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?

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.

--
Check my pictures on
https://www.instagram.com/mahidoes/
https://www.instagram.com/yuvaanaka/

Click to expand...

a_c_skinner said:

Not if you have a bag.

Click to expand...

the camera bag is the answer for me. at the first sign of rain, wipe off the camera and in the camera bag it goes. i don't want to shoot in the rain anyway.

See title.

And when talking about weather resistance, I'm talking about officially certified weather resistance, not vague claims of weather-sealing.

Never mind shooting in pouring rain or in a sandstorm, what if your camera is stored in your backpack and you get soaked by sudden rain or get splashed?

What if you kept away your camera from water but it got dusty/sandy a bit for whatever reason? I like camera where I can just rinse under a faucet to clean it.

And frankly, with weather-sealing, I get a little more daring with picture talking. It's more often than not worth it.

Weather resistance matters to me. I handle the issue by using a 'tough' camera (several actually). That also gets me the additional elements of robustness that go with such cameras.

The key is to have it with me when I need it.

A few years ago we were in Jasper NP in Alberta, Canada. We had reserved a boat ride down Maligne Lake to Spirit Island, because I wanted to photograph it. When we left the hotel it was clear and sunny, so I took only my APS-C camera, leaving the 'tough' camera in the hotel room.

When we boarded the boat at Maligne Lake it was cloudy and obviously closing in. It started raining on the boat ride. When we got off at the dock across from Spirit Island it was raining, fortunately not heavily. When we had walked to where I wanted to take my pictures, bride deployed umbrella very skillfully. I got my photos. They came out perfectly. My gear came through just fine. But I would not have gotten my photos without the umbrella shield because I would not have risked my gear.

On an earlier occasion we were in San Francisco around Christmas so my wife could take our granddaughters shopping. It was night and it was raining on and off. I had my 'tough' camera with me, a decision simplified by the fact that I was a recent convert to digital photography and this was my only digital camera.

Opting not to shop (easy decision) I started walking around near Union Square. I came upon John's Grille, which was Sam Spade's watering hole in Dashiell Hammett's 'The Maltese Falcon'. I wanted a picture, but it was night and I had a small sensor camera with a slow lens. I took a photo with the camera braced against a lamp pole. That worked and I got my photo. Although where I could stabilize the camera dictated my composition, it worked out for me. The sidewalk and what could be seen of the street were wet and reflecting the lights off the signs on the building. There was a taxi parked right in front of the building which added to the composition. Once home I converted to black and white and the final print achieved the film noir look I was seeking. I have it printed to 11X14" on the wall. Our son is also a film noir fan, and he has passed this on to our grandson, so there is also the same print on their wall.

That 'tough' camera, which I still use, really came through for me. One of the enjoyable elements of that experience was that I had no hesitation using the camera because I knew it was designed for that purpose.

One of the things I learned from Maligne Lake is that if there is any question at all about the weather, I now have a 'tough' camera with me, even if it never comes out of the case.

For the types of photography I pursue, this approach works. YMMV.

... and when the wind and rain came while on top of Cadillac Mountain, Acadia National Park last year it didn't stop me from taking pictures of cloud formations, wind swept trees and rainbows. Only thing I had to do is wipe the raindrops from the front of the lens once in a while so that I could continue shooting.

Inclimate weather (rain, snow, wind, etc.) is when you can get the most interesting and dramatic photos. You can't do that when the camera is in the bag.

Yes! Fully agree! If the camera/lens can get wet...so can I for a good photo opportunity.

Lucio Cicuto said:

... and when the wind and rain came while on top of Cadillac Mountain, Acadia National Park last year it didn't stop me from taking pictures of cloud formations, wind swept trees and rainbows. Only thing I had to do is wipe the raindrops from the front of the lens once in a while so that I could continue shooting.

Inclimate weather (rain, snow, wind, etc.) is when you can get the most interesting and dramatic photos. You can't do that when the camera is in the bag.

Click to expand...

well yes i agree, but if all you have is a canon T3i would you risk shooting in the rain? yes, i have done it but only briefly, wiping it dry and popped back in the camera bag.

so far no failures yet, until something happens i spose. been looking to upgrade to a canon 7D which is weather resistant, but i will still be careful.

Lucio Cicuto said:

... and when the wind and rain came while on top of Cadillac Mountain, Acadia National Park last year it didn't stop me from taking pictures of cloud formations, wind swept trees and rainbows. Only thing I had to do is wipe the raindrops from the front of the lens once in a while so that I could continue shooting.

Inclimate weather (rain, snow, wind, etc.) is when you can get the most interesting and dramatic photos. You can't do that when the camera is in the bag.

Click to expand...

Exactly, a perfect response.

Lucio Cicuto said:

--
Lucio Cicuto
Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk1, 12-100 F4, Epson 1430

Click to expand...

If you enjoy photography, wait a little longer, save a little more $$$ and get your 7D. As someone else said it, not worrying about some rain, wind or dust will allow you to focus on your photos and be more creative. Cheers

I doesn't do much for me, because I'm not very weather resistant myself lol

I hate rain and cold, or dusty and windy.

I shoot for fun, and these conditions are not fun for me. So I mostly avoid them.

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...

Snow, ice, rain, cold and/or tropical.

Been unexpectedly caught upon occasion in all; although i doubt that without some type of clothing cover over camera and then a run to car or shelter, that "resistance" does not equate to "waterproof".

More dangerous is that some folks are too careless with food and drink, but not me, at least that i would admit, so storms are not nearly as worrisome as spilled liquids and food, like beans, chili con queso,

Then there was the big splash from a swimming pool.......