Here is what Sony says about A99 weather sealing

[Piginho]

Nordstjernen wrote:

chrisfromalaska wrote:

[ ... ] I'm not sure what constitutes "weather sealing" standards. [ ...]

There is no standard, and none of the camera makes will tell us what exactly we should expect, or what is just too much.

When you say there is no standard, what do you mean?

A previous poster made a brief reference to "IP" ratings and this is a standard for protection from ingress of dust, water etc., that is widely recognized. It is used a lot for industrial equipment, like pumps and motors, for example, but is also used for domestic products. It provides a scale of protection from splash proof right through to submersible.

If Sony were to give their cameras IP ratings, we would all be able to check the definition for the rating given and act accordingly.

 

[JohnBee]

Nordstjernen wrote:

Also note that other cameras like the high end Nikons and Canons also are weather sealed, but they are not specified to take rain or splashing water. Thin might be a surprise, but also Pentax is very restrictive with their technical spesifications, in strong contrast to their advertising.

See: 1:10 for some crazy waterproofing

 

[cosmonaut]

Well I have has my a77 in a couple of downpours last year. So far not the a99. With that said I look at cameras like a cellphone. Use it like you stole it cause by the time it breaks or quits it's time for an upgrade. I would imagine 90% of the people buying an a99 willl only use it four or five years. Get an extended warranty and use that bad boy.

 

[Bruce Oudekerk]

As a point of reference water resistance rating on watches is thus (source Wikipedia, so it must be true

1. To 30 meters…NOT suitable for showering

2. To 100 meters…suitable for swimming and recreational surfing

3. To 200 meters… suitable for skin diving (not scuba)

By these criteria the a99 is probably water resistant to 30 meters. LOL

Bruce

 

[cyainparadise]

goetz48 wrote:

Not water proof, because it could not be operated below water.

Shows how much you know about cameras. Why don't you do some research before posting such nonsense? Here's a place for you to start-

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

Here's another-

Loading…

www.camerasunderwater.co.uk

 

[digitalshooter]

[No message]

 

[G6u7a1m]

The key word used is resistant. Even canon and nikon only say resistant. For warranty purposes is my guess. The only claims I have seen for full weather sealing come from Pentax and Olympus. Meaning if the elements cause damage to the camera they would have a hard time not covering the damages. Sony and the big two can get away with not covering the damages because the word resistant is not a guarantee. That's just my opinion.

 

[Michel J]

It seems to be Sony know very well how to make a good weather shield for his cameras:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/antarctica-2009-worked.shtml

What do you think folks...

They achieve that well for them broadcast video cameras from many decades.

Cheers,

--

Michel J

 

[Nordstjernen]

Piginho wrote:

Nordstjernen wrote:

chrisfromalaska wrote:

[ ... ] I'm not sure what constitutes "weather sealing" standards. [ ...]

There is no standard, and none of the camera makes will tell us what exactly we should expect, or what is just too much.

When you say there is no standard, what do you mean?

A previous poster made a brief reference to "IP" ratings and this is a standard for protection from ingress of dust, water etc., that is widely recognized. It is used a lot for industrial equipment, like pumps and motors, for example, but is also used for domestic products. It provides a scale of protection from splash proof right through to submersible.

If Sony were to give their cameras IP ratings, we would all be able to check the definition for the rating given and act accordingly.

Yes, I know about the IP standard, but this is not used for cameras.

What I should have written is that there is no standard used for cameras to spesific describe what sealing or weather sealing means.

 

[Nordstjernen]

Kappels wrote:

I have taken the A77 with the Sony 16-50mm f2.8 out in the full rain. (Not on purpose, but I was walking around a lake with no umbrella and there was no short cut back to the car). I had it hanging over my shoulder and when I came to the car the water was dripping from the cameras back screen. It was literally soaked. No problem whatsoever.

I would not recommend to do this on purpose but on the other hand if it happens I am not over-worried either.

Stef.

 

[Nordstjernen]

Well, they did not fire the camera under water ...

My point is that the A99 is not specified to be water sealed. I guess you could pour sand over an A99 and it would work just fine, and you could probably have dipped the camera into water and it would work afterwards. But how many times could you have repeated this beating, and for how long after repeated misuse would the camera work properly?

We don't even know for the Pentax, since they don't say that their cameras are splash proof. Here from the K-5II description (I don't know what the manual says in small print):

"Thanks to the inclusion of 77 special seals in the body, it boasts a dustproof, weather-resistant and cold-resistant construction, assuring reliable operation even under demanding outdoor conditions, and at temperatures as low as -10°C."

 

[Piginho]

Nordstjernen wrote:

Piginho wrote:

Nordstjernen wrote:

chrisfromalaska wrote:

[ ... ] I'm not sure what constitutes "weather sealing" standards. [ ...]

There is no standard, and none of the camera makes will tell us what exactly we should expect, or what is just too much.

When you say there is no standard, what do you mean?

A previous poster made a brief reference to "IP" ratings and this is a standard for protection from ingress of dust, water etc., that is widely recognized. It is used a lot for industrial equipment, like pumps and motors, for example, but is also used for domestic products. It provides a scale of protection from splash proof right through to submersible.

If Sony were to give their cameras IP ratings, we would all be able to check the definition for the rating given and act accordingly.

Yes, I know about the IP standard, but this is not used for cameras.

What I should have written is that there is no standard used for cameras to spesific describe what sealing or weather sealing means.

My point was, that there is an easily understood standard in existence already, which applies universally and that camera manufacturers could easily adopt it.

 

[Dustinash]

Nordstjernen wrote:

Well, they did not fire the camera under water ...

My point is that the A99 is not specified to be water sealed. I guess you could pour sand over an A99 and it would work just fine, and you could probably have dipped the camera into water and it would work afterwards. But how many times could you have repeated this beating, and for how long after repeated misuse would the camera work properly?

We don't even know for the Pentax, since they don't say that their cameras are splash proof. Here from the K-5II description (I don't know what the manual says in small print):

"Thanks to the inclusion of 77 special seals in the body, it boasts a dustproof, weather-resistant and cold-resistant construction, assuring reliable operation even under demanding outdoor conditions, and at temperatures as low as -10°C."

If you covered the a99 in sand or dipped it in water it would fail. Maybe the sand would just be a hassle getting into wheels and what not but a dunk would kill this camera dead. It is not at all sealed against submersion which has a higher pressure then standing water.

 

[Dustinash]

cosmonaut wrote:

Well I have has my a77 in a couple of downpours last year. So far not the a99. With that said I look at cameras like a cellphone. Use it like you stole it cause by the time it breaks or quits it's time for an upgrade. I would imagine 90% of the people buying an a99 willl only use it four or five years. Get an extended warranty and use that bad boy.

5 years? I am on a 1 year camera cycle

 

[Dustinash]

Bruce Oudekerk wrote:

As a point of reference water resistance rating on watches is thus (source Wikipedia, so it must be true

1. To 30 meters…NOT suitable for showering

2. To 100 meters…suitable for swimming and recreational surfing

3. To 200 meters… suitable for skin diving (not scuba)

By these criteria the a99 is probably water resistant to 30 meters. LOL

Bruce

 

[Nordstjernen]

Dustinash wrote:

Nordstjernen wrote:

Well, they did not fire the camera under water ...

My point is that the A99 is not specified to be water sealed. I guess you could pour sand over an A99 and it would work just fine, and you could probably have dipped the camera into water and it would work afterwards. But how many times could you have repeated this beating, and for how long after repeated misuse would the camera work properly?

We don't even know for the Pentax, since they don't say that their cameras are splash proof. Here from the K-5II description (I don't know what the manual says in small print):

"Thanks to the inclusion of 77 special seals in the body, it boasts a dustproof, weather-resistant and cold-resistant construction, assuring reliable operation even under demanding outdoor conditions, and at temperatures as low as -10°C."

If you covered the a99 in sand or dipped it in water it would fail. Maybe the sand would just be a hassle getting into wheels and what not but a dunk would kill this camera dead. It is not at all sealed against submersion which has a higher pressure then standing water.

We simply don't know what the A99 can take. Do we? My A77 can take a shower. I have tried!

 

[goetz48]

And I wanted to say that when you take off the lens you get IP00 (no dust & moisture protection).

For this cases I take my travel zoom. As long as it is mounted IP is much better.

 

[goetz48]

Operation includes removal of the lens. Do it below water. I do not know who has no idea.

Use cyan and go into paradise.

 

[eastbayrae]

I have shot plenty of times in light rain with my a77 with no ill effects. My Sony P&S camera I wouldn't even think of doing that with it.

 

[oklaphotog]

goetz48 wrote:

Operation includes removal of the lens. Do it below water. I do not know who has no idea.

Use cyan and go into paradise.

Operation doesn't always involve removal of the lens. The specs for "underwater operation", require not changing the lens under the surface. That is still operation. Besides you only use a UW when shooting underwater, so there is no need to change lenses. Changing lenses on a Nikonos is really more for use above the surface. People who shoot the Nikonos almost completely use the 15/2.8 if they can afford it. If not then the 20/2.8. The 28/3.5 is too narrow. All the other Nikonos lenses are for above surface photography. This is because of the close working distances required of the flash units underwater. Flash doesn't travel far underwater so you gotta be really close. If you want any FOV at all you need a UW while being that close.