Weather Sealing is a Gimmick.

I have a secondary warranty (not Oly) that covers liquid damage of any kind. The sales guy actually recommended if anything needed major repair and I just wanted a replacement camera simply boil the camera in some water and then send it in.

As I said before Olympus warranty is pretty flexible in my experience.

MichaelKJ wrote:

Brian Wadie wrote:

when I am stood on the beach shooting Kite / windsurfers with an on-shore force 6 wind, spume, sand and seaweed flying through the air and its hissing with rain I can assure you weather sealing is a gimmick I wouldn't be without (especially when it comes to washing the salt and crud off afterwards )

Have you ever had a non-weathersealed camera damaged in those conditions?

Yes,

and don't forget to put that protection filter on the end of the lens, another very useful gimmick that has saved me a few bob over the years, much better to scratch a filter than the front element of my lens

How do you know it has saved you money?

This remains a controversial topic:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/7333331953/should-you-use-a-uv-filter-on-your-lens

because a long time ago I scratched the front element of a lens when trying to clean the salt muck off when shooting such action. Since then I have always used a filter in such conditions and had to replace a couple of protection filters but never again a lens element

Have you ever shot in these conditions and if so, how was it for you? (how did you keep the kit clean a dry and prevent salt water corrosion)

Be clear, I only ever use a protection filter when shooting in these conditions, for all normal use the lens hood provides all the protection I need and I use the bare lens

I can't really see what your point is that you are trying so hard to make, if you don't want or need to use weather sealed kit for your photography, good for you, but some of us do and it should cause you no problem as we don't ask or expect you to follow our example

G1Houston wrote:

.. in a way that is not so provocative. Then may be we can have more productive discussions on this matter.

Basically for a typical reasonably well built body, say EM10, that is not advertised to be weather sealed, the OP contends that these cameras' abilities to survive most common weather related matters are already sufficient. Is it worth the price, for most people, to pay more to get weather-sealed systems? I think this is a fair question. Just like asking whether it is worth it to pay more to get AWD and snow tires if you live in the northeast.

My feeling is that if you shoot in foul weathers a lot, you are a pro and will go out to shoot no matter what, the extra protection from weather sealed systems is worth the price. For most others who would rather stay indoors when it is raining, snowing, it is not worth the extra cost.

The core of OP's question is not whether weather sealing in theory can provide better protections, but whether the cost associated with such improvements worth the price for most people.

So what is new? Why are we still arguing?

the answer to your question is that you are right but you are not stating as a fact that weather sealing is a gimmick and not worth the money, as the OP did

Two entirely different scenarios, one is a logical proposition in the form of a question, the other total garbage (in my humble opinion of course )

Steve,

I'm sure you must have been a fantastic racing driver & that has to translate to your ability to drive on ice with rear wheel drive car; but I doubt your 60 mile commute includes driving over a mountain.

That's what I have to do to get into the next town from my fjord. The distance is far less than what you're doing, maybe around 15 miles one way. However, we're around 700 people in my town and I'd dare saying there are less than 5 cars with rear wheel drive here and less than 10% non-four wheel drive cars period.

Ice is not a problem at all since most cars (at least those used to go over the mountain) have tyres with spikes. The problems are:

- strong winds piling snow in places to the point where you literally don't see where the road is

- again, strong winds minimizing visibility to the point where you don't see more than a few feet ahead

- snow pilled up in places in excess of 10 feet (our town gets cut off at least a couple of times for days per winter)

- and finally, wet snow. Any car looses traction at certain point, it's just that four wheel driven ones "hold it together" far longer.

Maybe an average driver where you come from has a four wheel drive because he/she can't use a 2 wheel drive, but where I come from, it's purely a necessity.

Unless of course you want to call 95 % of my town's population idiots who can't drive.

Really?  A little help to post 150;>)

JL

I like weather sealing in both bodies and lenses.  Bump 2.

JL

Yes I have seen that and others.

I guess that's my point: un-cynically I want to take guidance from Oly. Do I expose my camera to the conditions demonstrated in the videos or do I limit the exposure to what the IP rating indicates?

If they feel that it's necessary to leave us on our own in terms of risk, it seems only fair to tell us unequivocally what the camera is designed and has been tested to take.

Otherwise one must just rely on anecdotes - mostly successful but some not.

A really worthy discussion would be about the Humidity specification(s) of digital cameras, but I don't want to start it.  Most have max humidity rating in the 80-90% range w/ the EM1 now at 90%, but some (many) are in the 80-85% range.  So what is humidity when it's raining?  Do I have to say it's !00%?  Now that spec is a CYA one if I've ever seen one.

Bump #3 probably can't get away w/ more.

JL

For standard warranty.

JL